It had the single largest internal fuel capacity of all fighters in its generation and capability to carry external drop tanks. It was designed to cover them within range where interception had a noticeable chance of success as it was passing potential NATO held landmass with land based interceptor aircraft.
Strike group's own interceptors have no real chance of fighting them in the first place because of aforementioned constraints.
Obvious flaw in the argument is the: 1. Size of the target. 2. Mobility of the target.
It's much easier to jam and/or dodge a missile off a medium sized supersonic aircraft it's attempting to intercept from above and front than a huge aircraft carrier that has no maneuverability to speak of.
Those are CIWS weapons. CIWS weapons are last line of defense. To an ordinary person, that is the "kitchen sink" in "throw everything at it" scenario. Even if they are working, they are simply going to get saturated with targets as Russian doctrine is to launch multiple missiles from multiple directions at once. And Kh-15s have terminal velocity of about mach 5. That means your laser, even if it actually gets to work (right now, it doesn't for a number of reasons and no ship currently in service can actually support laser based CIWS weapon in combat configuration due to power supply and cooling constraints) will simply not have time to do the work. That is why CIWS are the "kitchen sink".
P.S. The current "deployment" of laser based weaponry AFAIK is about re-rigging FEL test bed lasers from CIWS weaponry to anti surface low power weapons to combat the two aforementioned problems as they run at much lower power and have much more time to aim and fire the weapon.
Even the Navy commanders themselves openly admitted that F-14 and AIM-54 was an product borne out of desperation and didn't have much of a chance against threat scenarios presented before it. AIM-54 was a vastly flawed attempt to make a long range air to air missile which was largely a failure - hence its retirement after the only platform ever made capable of launching and guiding it was retired. Suggesting that a bomber with significant jamming and chaff dispensing capability would "fall like a leaf" from such a missile is like suggesting that "Mike Tyson at his best would have been knocked out by the impact of that little girl's slap".
As in it is in the realm of possibility, just not a very realistic scenario. But if was a scenario where there was at least an ability to detected and fire something at the bomber that would have a chance of connecting with it. Which is a whole lot more than current situation with F/A-18Es and the upcoming F-35Cs, which will never be able to even engage the bomber.
But that has nothing to do with capabilities we're talking about. You're throwing out an obvious red herring here to deflect attention from the subject. We're talking about wholesale dragnet style intelligence gathering. Not targeted strikes. That's why reference was "NSA" and not "CIA".
That arms race has a downside of enabling remote killing of people with no significant recourse of defense. Reference: current situation in Pakistan and Yemen.
To be fair "traditional anti-ballistic missile defense systems" are something of a joke anyway. And it's much easier to nail a carrier group with either supersonic maritime strike bombers carrying long range air to surface anti shipping missiles (Soviet/Russian approach) or submarine force (pretty much everyone else's approach).
These weapons are just another insurance against potential US carrier-based aggression campaign in their region. One should not consider it the main deterrent but just one on the long list of such deterrents.
Russians already solved this problem long ago with maritime high speed supersonic bombers specifically designed to rush in and kill carrier groups covered from air threats by equally fast and nearly as long range Su-27 derivatives. They're the only ones in the world with a massive fleet of supersonic (we're talking near and beyond mach 2 here - F-35C for example is much slower) bombers specifically designed for ship killing job that are armed with cruise missiles that match the launch platform. Here's one example of such an aircraft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The only task those aircraft are designed for is to get in launch range and fire off their Kh-15 missiles that themselves have ~300km range.
It's pretty well known that if a real war was ever to break out, there would be two kinds of aircraft carrier ships. Those in ports and those beneath the sea. The real purpose of modern aircraft carrier is long range power projection over small weak states with no MAD deterrent or significant air/submarine force. That is why as long as Soviet threat persisted, the main air defense aircraft on aircraft carriers was extremely expensive long range F-14. It was the only aircraft US had that had the radar range and missile range to have even a remote hope of success in counter strike against such bombers going in for the kill before its mothership is killed.
The only significant strategic advantage that supersonic weapons offer is better first strike capability. Everything else is just tactical, like having better air defense penetration, and is generally not cost effective as you could likely make a much larger swarm of modern ~mach 3-5 rockets that have only marginally lesser kill ratio to compensate for this advantage for the same cost.
In other words, you grab on the edge case "cop is a shitbag" and ignore the rest.
Your assertion is based on unsubstantiated claim that is against observed trend in the study that attempts to salvage its case by grabbing onto statistical edge case to salvage the result. In other words, you already picked the end result to push a specific agenda and are attempting to warp the circumstances to somehow back your case in face of overwhelming evidence to contrary.
No, that is just one of countless amount of problems, most of which are generally not on police side of things. You are presenting one edge case as a norm. Why?
It's usually best to avoid smugly correcting others when you're clueless on the subject. In adversary justice system like that in US, the scenario #2 will usually warrant a long look from prosecutor to see if the case is worth bringing to court. Most cases of such nature will usually be either settled as is the case in US or straight up dropped with a slap on the wrist like a fine like happens in most of Europe with no going to court unless you contest prosecutor's decision.
In investigatory system like in France, you'll have magistrate look into the case, decide that there is likely no merit and that there is probably merit against the police and let you off with a slap on the wrist.
Took me a while to figure out what you're talking about. That's some exotic trolling. Well done. Shame no one cares about it this far down the chain.
Your case was specifically addressed long ago when I mentioned the costs. You've linked to standards table which addresses what kinds of memory are made. It's correct to state that in those standard, CAS latency generally gets net better as frequency goes up. What you are trolling on is costs - subject mentioned at the very beginning.
Well, you just jumped from sociopath to straight up psychopath. Not only do you feel no compassion, you're actively enjoying turning the situation against the user just to get off on it.
I was talking about specific problem - resisting arrest as a way to protest police action. It's stupid in both potential cases:
1. You're guilty. You just add resisting arrest to the case, making it worse for you in the court. 2. You're innocent. You could have walked, but now you're going to get criminal record for resisting arrest.
Not only that but resisting arrest is a crime in the first place in overwhelming majority of the countries.
A reasonable course of action is to allow police officer to arrest you and then figure out if he had grounds to do so with his higher ups at the station.
Where did I post anything to suggest what you're suggesting?
It's well known that increasing RAM frequency impacts latency in net negative way. Your suggestion implies that impact is neutral, when it's rarely so unless you buy much more expensive RAM specifically picked and binned for those frequencies and latencies. Typical RAM sold incurs significant net negative impact on latency as frequency increases. Alternative is lower reliability.
Anyone who did any overclocking and worked with RAM memory doing it should be well aware of this issue.
Actually that is how it works. Concept of a bottleneck refers to aspect of a pipe+pool system where thickness of the pipe is the limiting factor and increasing width of the pipe offers a comparable increase in flow throughput.
When you double pipe's thickness and get 1-2% more flow, it means that your system's bottleneck is elsewhere.
Let me see if I understood your argument correctly. You are genuinely, seriously making an argument that physical assault on a police officer is something that typically starts as a physical assault, with no preamble of any kind? Preamble like mouthing off, threatening, arguing and so on?
Because if you ever even glanced at criminology studies on the topic, you'd know that overwhelming majority of violence against police in modern Western countries, including US (which is a massive outlier in this group to start with, but is similar in this regard) starts with much lesser problem and escalates into a violence. OP clearly shows that camera present deters the beginning of escalation very effectively and provides correlation to match it in that both ends of the abuse are down in the test case.
Correct. That is why places like taxis, shopping malls and so on have "this place is being video taped" notices. It's a very well researched and understood deterrent to most forms of anti-social behaviour.
I suspect that police officers' cameras are/will be made to be easily visible for that very reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is not NSA's area of expertise but CIA's. As a result, we are clearly talking about completely different capabilities.
It had the single largest internal fuel capacity of all fighters in its generation and capability to carry external drop tanks. It was designed to cover them within range where interception had a noticeable chance of success as it was passing potential NATO held landmass with land based interceptor aircraft.
Strike group's own interceptors have no real chance of fighting them in the first place because of aforementioned constraints.
Obvious flaw in the argument is the:
1. Size of the target.
2. Mobility of the target.
It's much easier to jam and/or dodge a missile off a medium sized supersonic aircraft it's attempting to intercept from above and front than a huge aircraft carrier that has no maneuverability to speak of.
Those are CIWS weapons. CIWS weapons are last line of defense. To an ordinary person, that is the "kitchen sink" in "throw everything at it" scenario. Even if they are working, they are simply going to get saturated with targets as Russian doctrine is to launch multiple missiles from multiple directions at once. And Kh-15s have terminal velocity of about mach 5. That means your laser, even if it actually gets to work (right now, it doesn't for a number of reasons and no ship currently in service can actually support laser based CIWS weapon in combat configuration due to power supply and cooling constraints) will simply not have time to do the work. That is why CIWS are the "kitchen sink".
P.S. The current "deployment" of laser based weaponry AFAIK is about re-rigging FEL test bed lasers from CIWS weaponry to anti surface low power weapons to combat the two aforementioned problems as they run at much lower power and have much more time to aim and fire the weapon.
Even the Navy commanders themselves openly admitted that F-14 and AIM-54 was an product borne out of desperation and didn't have much of a chance against threat scenarios presented before it. AIM-54 was a vastly flawed attempt to make a long range air to air missile which was largely a failure - hence its retirement after the only platform ever made capable of launching and guiding it was retired. Suggesting that a bomber with significant jamming and chaff dispensing capability would "fall like a leaf" from such a missile is like suggesting that "Mike Tyson at his best would have been knocked out by the impact of that little girl's slap".
As in it is in the realm of possibility, just not a very realistic scenario. But if was a scenario where there was at least an ability to detected and fire something at the bomber that would have a chance of connecting with it. Which is a whole lot more than current situation with F/A-18Es and the upcoming F-35Cs, which will never be able to even engage the bomber.
But that has nothing to do with capabilities we're talking about. You're throwing out an obvious red herring here to deflect attention from the subject. We're talking about wholesale dragnet style intelligence gathering. Not targeted strikes. That's why reference was "NSA" and not "CIA".
That arms race has a downside of enabling remote killing of people with no significant recourse of defense. Reference: current situation in Pakistan and Yemen.
To be fair "traditional anti-ballistic missile defense systems" are something of a joke anyway. And it's much easier to nail a carrier group with either supersonic maritime strike bombers carrying long range air to surface anti shipping missiles (Soviet/Russian approach) or submarine force (pretty much everyone else's approach).
These weapons are just another insurance against potential US carrier-based aggression campaign in their region. One should not consider it the main deterrent but just one on the long list of such deterrents.
Russians already solved this problem long ago with maritime high speed supersonic bombers specifically designed to rush in and kill carrier groups covered from air threats by equally fast and nearly as long range Su-27 derivatives. They're the only ones in the world with a massive fleet of supersonic (we're talking near and beyond mach 2 here - F-35C for example is much slower) bombers specifically designed for ship killing job that are armed with cruise missiles that match the launch platform.
Here's one example of such an aircraft:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The only task those aircraft are designed for is to get in launch range and fire off their Kh-15 missiles that themselves have ~300km range.
It's pretty well known that if a real war was ever to break out, there would be two kinds of aircraft carrier ships. Those in ports and those beneath the sea. The real purpose of modern aircraft carrier is long range power projection over small weak states with no MAD deterrent or significant air/submarine force. That is why as long as Soviet threat persisted, the main air defense aircraft on aircraft carriers was extremely expensive long range F-14. It was the only aircraft US had that had the radar range and missile range to have even a remote hope of success in counter strike against such bombers going in for the kill before its mothership is killed.
The only significant strategic advantage that supersonic weapons offer is better first strike capability. Everything else is just tactical, like having better air defense penetration, and is generally not cost effective as you could likely make a much larger swarm of modern ~mach 3-5 rockets that have only marginally lesser kill ratio to compensate for this advantage for the same cost.
And you would be correct, for reasons of simple mathematics. No other country has the capability or budget even if they wanted to do it.
In other words, you grab on the edge case "cop is a shitbag" and ignore the rest.
Your assertion is based on unsubstantiated claim that is against observed trend in the study that attempts to salvage its case by grabbing onto statistical edge case to salvage the result. In other words, you already picked the end result to push a specific agenda and are attempting to warp the circumstances to somehow back your case in face of overwhelming evidence to contrary.
No, that is just one of countless amount of problems, most of which are generally not on police side of things. You are presenting one edge case as a norm. Why?
It's usually best to avoid smugly correcting others when you're clueless on the subject. In adversary justice system like that in US, the scenario #2 will usually warrant a long look from prosecutor to see if the case is worth bringing to court. Most cases of such nature will usually be either settled as is the case in US or straight up dropped with a slap on the wrist like a fine like happens in most of Europe with no going to court unless you contest prosecutor's decision.
In investigatory system like in France, you'll have magistrate look into the case, decide that there is likely no merit and that there is probably merit against the police and let you off with a slap on the wrist.
So you grab the extreme edge case and peddle it as norm.
Why?
Any number of reasons ranging from mistaken identity to improperly acting police officer?
Why are you asking questions wholly irrelevant to the topic?
Took me a while to figure out what you're talking about. That's some exotic trolling. Well done. Shame no one cares about it this far down the chain.
Your case was specifically addressed long ago when I mentioned the costs. You've linked to standards table which addresses what kinds of memory are made. It's correct to state that in those standard, CAS latency generally gets net better as frequency goes up. What you are trolling on is costs - subject mentioned at the very beginning.
Well, you just jumped from sociopath to straight up psychopath. Not only do you feel no compassion, you're actively enjoying turning the situation against the user just to get off on it.
Congratulations.
What on earth are you talking about?
I was talking about specific problem - resisting arrest as a way to protest police action. It's stupid in both potential cases:
1. You're guilty. You just add resisting arrest to the case, making it worse for you in the court.
2. You're innocent. You could have walked, but now you're going to get criminal record for resisting arrest.
You lose in both cases.
Let's see.
User's daughter is alive. He takes pictures of her and posts them on facebook like a proud parent.
User's daughter dies. User grieves.
User starts to get over his grief. Facebook tosses the images right in his face.
Reaction of a third party: "well you shouldn't have posted them in the first place!"
Tell me AC. Are you this sociopathic in life outside slashdot too? Because if you are, you should seek psychiatric help.
Not only that but resisting arrest is a crime in the first place in overwhelming majority of the countries.
A reasonable course of action is to allow police officer to arrest you and then figure out if he had grounds to do so with his higher ups at the station.
Where did I post anything to suggest what you're suggesting?
It's well known that increasing RAM frequency impacts latency in net negative way. Your suggestion implies that impact is neutral, when it's rarely so unless you buy much more expensive RAM specifically picked and binned for those frequencies and latencies. Typical RAM sold incurs significant net negative impact on latency as frequency increases. Alternative is lower reliability.
Anyone who did any overclocking and worked with RAM memory doing it should be well aware of this issue.
Actually that is how it works. Concept of a bottleneck refers to aspect of a pipe+pool system where thickness of the pipe is the limiting factor and increasing width of the pipe offers a comparable increase in flow throughput.
When you double pipe's thickness and get 1-2% more flow, it means that your system's bottleneck is elsewhere.
Let me see if I understood your argument correctly. You are genuinely, seriously making an argument that physical assault on a police officer is something that typically starts as a physical assault, with no preamble of any kind? Preamble like mouthing off, threatening, arguing and so on?
Because if you ever even glanced at criminology studies on the topic, you'd know that overwhelming majority of violence against police in modern Western countries, including US (which is a massive outlier in this group to start with, but is similar in this regard) starts with much lesser problem and escalates into a violence. OP clearly shows that camera present deters the beginning of escalation very effectively and provides correlation to match it in that both ends of the abuse are down in the test case.
Correct. That is why places like taxis, shopping malls and so on have "this place is being video taped" notices. It's a very well researched and understood deterrent to most forms of anti-social behaviour.
I suspect that police officers' cameras are/will be made to be easily visible for that very reason.
Have you tried reading the OP? It presents concrete correlation with my claim and is in direct conflict with yours.