we'll be supporting those for at least a decade or two after the F-35, we've sold huge amounts of them around the world
The only other airforce to use the F-18E/F is the Australian Airforce and they bought 24. These aircraft will be replaced by the F-35. I think you might be confusing the F-18AC/D with the F-18E/F; they are very different aircraft.
I neither know or suspect. I am just making an accusation and challenging you to prove it false.
If I were a serial killer I would be capable of causing your death
You have no idea who I am or where I live. Maybe you are only capable of killing children under the age of five?
I am not a serial killer, or you would be dead.
The other explanations for my continues existence are as follows; 1. You don't know who I am. 2. You don't have the financial resources to come to me and kill me. 3. You don't have the capability of killing someone who can defend themselves. 4. The attempt would uncover your actions. To put it slightly differently "You have been arrested by the police and are accused of being a child killer. Prove that you have never killed a child".
The replacement for the F-15 is the F-22. And now the replacement for the F-22 is the F-35. Even the F-15, originally a pure fighter, was given a ground attack rile with the F-15E Strike Eagle.
The F16 was designed as an interceptor,
The F-16 is designed as a light weight multi-role fighter. Just take a look at the armaments that the F-16 carries. There are lots of bombs and air to ground missiles in that mix.
a very different role than an air superiority fighter (and one that has become almost meaningless)
You will say something completely different if the US get in a shooting war with Russia, China or Iran.
but since we're cutting every military budget everywhere, we can't have nice things.
We can't have multiple different aircraft when a cheaper alternative is one aircraft that does the jobs to almost the same level.
A small capacity bomber is also called a ground attack or strike aircraft. In general the US designation for those aircraft start with an "A" as in A-10. Bombers generally drop bombs from level flight while ground attack aircraft get much closer.
true air superiority fighters are nor automatically also serviceable ground attack craft
I never said they were. I just said that it is not too difficult to design one that way. Most modern fighters are dual role. The Brits even strapped Sidewinders to the AV-8 Harrier in the Falklands.
Not does the F-104 seem to be much of a ground attack craft.
While not designed as a strike aircraft Canada used the CF-104 in that role.
And that mission couldn't be accomplished with cheaper, longer-range, twin-engine Super Hornets
Which will no longer be built or supported by the US when the F-35 comes on line. Replacing an obsolete aircraft with a slightly less obsolete aircraft is not a good solution.
Look what they did with the F-15/16s, everything but carrier ops.
And VTOL. The F15/16, which by the way are 2 completely different aircraft, did only two roles; air superiority and ground attack. It is not difficult to design an aircraft that handle those two roles.
Most ATC no longer rely on actual radar. They generally rely on the aircraft reporting their position with a transponder. Even military aircraft have these transponders which are turned off in combat situations.
This was not the requirements of the client states who got suckered into this program.
The requirement of many "client states" is that they, since they will generally be deployed along side other nations and almost always the US, use the same parts and maintenance equipment as the US. It is a huge advantage to be able to borrow parts and equipment from other squadrons.
or even older existing US aircraft to meet their needs.
Do you mean the aircraft that will no longer be built or supported by US industry after the US moves to the F-35? Replacing an obsolete aircraft with a slightly less obsolete aircraft is not an upgrade?
Again, what aircraft would you choose for your country. The minimum requirements would be an air superiority and ground attack aircraft.
I'm surprised most countries have't told the F35 program to go jump off a pier and go find an actual plane which exists and can be flown today.
What would you suggest that is not already 20 years out of date? Remember you need to cover air superiority, ground attack, carrier based, and VTOL. All of these types of aircraft in the US inventory are getting very long in the tooth (with the possible exception of the f22). You can use as many different aircraft as you like. It is very easy to give a simple solution without actually solving the problem.
On average, a liter of water from the microlayer contained 195 particles—this concentration is 10 to 100 times higher than microplastic particles in water collected by other methods.
One litre of water is 1,000,000 cubic millimetres. Given a depth of 1 mm that would cover 1 square meter. So therefore 195 particles per square meter. They don't go into how big these particles are. The issue is that these particle float and therefore would be concentrated in the upper 1 millimetre of water. They have not shown it is a problem.
Bhutan: One company running few drones. Low probability of collision between drones Mostly rural. Low probability of drone striking obstacle Little civil aviation. Low probability of collision. Sparse population. Low probability of injury if drone goes down
Seattle Hundreds of companies wanting to use drones; Much higher probability of collision between drones Mostly urban with power line, tall buildings, radio towers, etc. Much higher probability of drone striking obstacle Lots of civil aviation. Much higher probability of collision. Dense population. Much higher probability of injury if drone goes down
Using a drone in the skies over Seattle is orders of magnitude more complex than over Bhutan.
Seems like this method of delivery would be great for dealing drugs
Other delivery methods that would be great for dealing drugs are cars, trucks, boats, airplanes, submarines, etc. Gust because the device can be use for drug trafficking does not mean it needs to be heavily regulated.
Our State Constitution has strong privacy protections, and the act of flying a drone that can see in your upstairs window, without a court ordered warrant issued for a specific person at a specific place at a specific time, violates many parts of that.
Anyone at a higher elevation, ie standing on a hill, can see into your upstairs window so standing on a hill would be illegal. By this logic it would also be illegal to fly aircraft as they can also see into upstairs windows. It is not the ability to spy that is illegal it is the act of spying that is illegal.
They are also referring to recharging stations between the hospitals. For example if the range of the drone is 40 miles and the destination is over 40 miles away there needs to be at least one recharge between the source and destination. The beauty of an automated recharge station is that they can be put anywhere along the route.
City of London Police (a private police force in government-backed livery with an authority that does not go beyond the corporate-controlled City of London area — so not to be confused with the Metropolitan Police)
The City of London Police is the territorial police force responsible for law enforcement within the City of London, including the Middle and Inner Temples.
The police authority is the Common Council of the City,
What may confuse you Americans is that most British cities have "corporation" in their official name. For example, I live near "The Corporation of the District of Sannich".
The City of London Police is overseen by an elected body and funded through taxes. It is not a private police force. I think that was just a transparent attempt to sensationalize a news story.
As Goldfinger was written in 1959 that quote is a paraphrase of a much older saying.
It’s unclear that the saying’s origin is from Chicago; Fleming was probably thinking of Chicago’s gangster years of the 1920s-1930s. “Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a habit” has been cited in print since at least 1921. “Once is nothing, twice is coincidence, three times is a moral certainty” has been cited in print since 1923.
t may not seem like an important distinction from where you're sitting, but it's important in that we shouldn't have SWAT teams busting down teenagers' doors because they shared a movie on the Internet.
SWAT teams are not used in every criminal matter so stop sensationalizing. There are many criminal matters that involve arrests without SWAT teams. I see nothing wrong with issuing an arrest warrant and sending a couple of cops to arrest someone violating copyright.
The process should not simply be replaced by SWAT teams.
No the process should be augmented by the district attorney's office who has the resources to protect the public.
Is the appropriate response to then simply have government agents arbitrarily decide who should have the kid(s)
No, The appropriate response is if for the government to appoint a lawyer to advocate for the parent in court. Just the same way the district attorney advocates for victims of crime.
Will you be among those to blame the government when a piece of information known by the FBI was not connected to another piece of information known by the CIA and another 911 happens?
The opposite could also happen. The FBI could overreact because they do not have a piece of information from another agency.
So when an artist creates something they can be copied by any big business that wants to. The individual has no recourse because the large company will just bury them in lawyers. So in effect you are saying that anyone who does not have the resources to defend their copyrights have no copyrights.
Slashdot Mirror
Another AC with a moronic statement. I guess you never heard of noodling. By the way, there is a reason we make tools.
we'll be supporting those for at least a decade or two after the F-35, we've sold huge amounts of them around the world
The only other airforce to use the F-18E/F is the Australian Airforce and they bought 24. These aircraft will be replaced by the F-35. I think you might be confusing the F-18AC/D with the F-18E/F; they are very different aircraft.
You clearly either know or suspect.
I neither know or suspect. I am just making an accusation and challenging you to prove it false.
If I were a serial killer I would be capable of causing your death
You have no idea who I am or where I live. Maybe you are only capable of killing children under the age of five?
I am not a serial killer, or you would be dead.
The other explanations for my continues existence are as follows;
1. You don't know who I am.
2. You don't have the financial resources to come to me and kill me.
3. You don't have the capability of killing someone who can defend themselves.
4. The attempt would uncover your actions.
To put it slightly differently "You have been arrested by the police and are accused of being a child killer. Prove that you have never killed a child".
The replacement for the F16 is the F22
The replacement for the F-15 is the F-22. And now the replacement for the F-22 is the F-35. Even the F-15, originally a pure fighter, was given a ground attack rile with the F-15E Strike Eagle.
The F16 was designed as an interceptor,
The F-16 is designed as a light weight multi-role fighter. Just take a look at the armaments that the F-16 carries. There are lots of bombs and air to ground missiles in that mix.
a very different role than an air superiority fighter (and one that has become almost meaningless)
You will say something completely different if the US get in a shooting war with Russia, China or Iran.
but since we're cutting every military budget everywhere, we can't have nice things.
We can't have multiple different aircraft when a cheaper alternative is one aircraft that does the jobs to almost the same level.
Oh, bomber, if you don't need much capacity.
A small capacity bomber is also called a ground attack or strike aircraft. In general the US designation for those aircraft start with an "A" as in A-10. Bombers generally drop bombs from level flight while ground attack aircraft get much closer.
true air superiority fighters are nor automatically also serviceable ground attack craft
I never said they were. I just said that it is not too difficult to design one that way. Most modern fighters are dual role. The Brits even strapped Sidewinders to the AV-8 Harrier in the Falklands.
Not does the F-104 seem to be much of a ground attack craft.
While not designed as a strike aircraft Canada used the CF-104 in that role.
I'm not sure the F-117 is a fighter.
The F-117 was a bomber much like the F-111
No, because Jupiter is not a star. It is the same reason that Pluto/Charon is not a binary planet as neither of them is a planet.
And that mission couldn't be accomplished with cheaper, longer-range, twin-engine Super Hornets
Which will no longer be built or supported by the US when the F-35 comes on line. Replacing an obsolete aircraft with a slightly less obsolete aircraft is not a good solution.
Look what they did with the F-15/16s, everything but carrier ops.
And VTOL. The F15/16, which by the way are 2 completely different aircraft, did only two roles; air superiority and ground attack. It is not difficult to design an aircraft that handle those two roles.
Most ATC no longer rely on actual radar. They generally rely on the aircraft reporting their position with a transponder. Even military aircraft have these transponders which are turned off in combat situations.
You haven't shown there isn't a problem.
Proving a negative is almost impossible. For example, prove that you are not a serial killer.
This was not the requirements of the client states who got suckered into this program.
The requirement of many "client states" is that they, since they will generally be deployed along side other nations and almost always the US, use the same parts and maintenance equipment as the US. It is a huge advantage to be able to borrow parts and equipment from other squadrons.
or even older existing US aircraft to meet their needs.
Do you mean the aircraft that will no longer be built or supported by US industry after the US moves to the F-35? Replacing an obsolete aircraft with a slightly less obsolete aircraft is not an upgrade?
Again, what aircraft would you choose for your country. The minimum requirements would be an air superiority and ground attack aircraft.
1 "milli-liters" = 1 cubic centimetre (cc) = 1000 cubic millimetres
I'm surprised most countries have't told the F35 program to go jump off a pier and go find an actual plane which exists and can be flown today.
What would you suggest that is not already 20 years out of date? Remember you need to cover air superiority, ground attack, carrier based, and VTOL. All of these types of aircraft in the US inventory are getting very long in the tooth (with the possible exception of the f22). You can use as many different aircraft as you like. It is very easy to give a simple solution without actually solving the problem.
On average, a liter of water from the microlayer contained 195 particles—this concentration is 10 to 100 times higher than microplastic particles in water collected by other methods.
One litre of water is 1,000,000 cubic millimetres. Given a depth of 1 mm that would cover 1 square meter. So therefore 195 particles per square meter. They don't go into how big these particles are. The issue is that these particle float and therefore would be concentrated in the upper 1 millimetre of water. They have not shown it is a problem.
Bhutan:
One company running few drones. Low probability of collision between drones
Mostly rural. Low probability of drone striking obstacle
Little civil aviation. Low probability of collision.
Sparse population. Low probability of injury if drone goes down
Seattle
Hundreds of companies wanting to use drones; Much higher probability of collision between drones
Mostly urban with power line, tall buildings, radio towers, etc. Much higher probability of drone striking obstacle
Lots of civil aviation. Much higher probability of collision.
Dense population. Much higher probability of injury if drone goes down
Using a drone in the skies over Seattle is orders of magnitude more complex than over Bhutan.
Seems like this method of delivery would be great for dealing drugs
Other delivery methods that would be great for dealing drugs are cars, trucks, boats, airplanes, submarines, etc. Gust because the device can be use for drug trafficking does not mean it needs to be heavily regulated.
Our State Constitution has strong privacy protections, and the act of flying a drone that can see in your upstairs window, without a court ordered warrant issued for a specific person at a specific place at a specific time, violates many parts of that.
Anyone at a higher elevation, ie standing on a hill, can see into your upstairs window so standing on a hill would be illegal. By this logic it would also be illegal to fly aircraft as they can also see into upstairs windows. It is not the ability to spy that is illegal it is the act of spying that is illegal.
They are also referring to recharging stations between the hospitals. For example if the range of the drone is 40 miles and the destination is over 40 miles away there needs to be at least one recharge between the source and destination. The beauty of an automated recharge station is that they can be put anywhere along the route.
City of London Police (a private police force in government-backed livery with an authority that does not go beyond the corporate-controlled City of London area — so not to be confused with the Metropolitan Police)
The poster didn't read the Wiki on the City of London Police;
The City of London Police is the territorial police force responsible for law enforcement within the City of London, including the Middle and Inner Temples.
The police authority is the Common Council of the City,
The Common Council of the City is an elected body. The City of London police is also publicly funded.
What may confuse you Americans is that most British cities have "corporation" in their official name. For example, I live near "The Corporation of the District of Sannich".
The City of London Police is overseen by an elected body and funded through taxes. It is not a private police force. I think that was just a transparent attempt to sensationalize a news story.
As Goldfinger was written in 1959 that quote is a paraphrase of a much older saying.
It’s unclear that the saying’s origin is from Chicago; Fleming was probably thinking of Chicago’s gangster years of the 1920s-1930s. “Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a habit” has been cited in print since at least 1921. “Once is nothing, twice is coincidence, three times is a moral certainty” has been cited in print since 1923.
t may not seem like an important distinction from where you're sitting, but it's important in that we shouldn't have SWAT teams busting down teenagers' doors because they shared a movie on the Internet.
SWAT teams are not used in every criminal matter so stop sensationalizing. There are many criminal matters that involve arrests without SWAT teams. I see nothing wrong with issuing an arrest warrant and sending a couple of cops to arrest someone violating copyright.
The process should not simply be replaced by SWAT teams.
No the process should be augmented by the district attorney's office who has the resources to protect the public.
Is the appropriate response to then simply have government agents arbitrarily decide who should have the kid(s)
No, The appropriate response is if for the government to appoint a lawyer to advocate for the parent in court. Just the same way the district attorney advocates for victims of crime.
You will talk a different tune when their incompetence puts you in jail.
No, I'll take incompetence over competently (but not benevolently) administered tyranny.
Let me re-phrase that for you
No, I'll take lawlessness over competently (but not benevolently) administered tyranny.
Will you be among those to blame the government when a piece of information known by the FBI was not connected to another piece of information known by the CIA and another 911 happens?
The opposite could also happen. The FBI could overreact because they do not have a piece of information from another agency.
Incompetence is not a good thing.
So when an artist creates something they can be copied by any big business that wants to. The individual has no recourse because the large company will just bury them in lawyers. So in effect you are saying that anyone who does not have the resources to defend their copyrights have no copyrights.