Can you land an F-22 on a carrier? No. (You might be able to navalize it, but it would be a substantial effort.)
Can the F-22 land on a Marine amphibious assault ship? Oh HELL no.
Now I'm not arguing that either aircraft was or was not a well-run, cost-effective program. But these aircraft have different missions and different capabilities, and to equate them is silly.
Technically the Rights outlined in the constitution are a non-exhaustive list meaning they are only some rights amount many that citizens possess. Thus a right does not have to be explicitly in the constitution to be a valid legal right.
"citizens"
NO.
Those are rights that PEOPLE are endowed with, not granted by the government. This is a fundamental understanding of the concept. The Bill of Rights is not about what makes United States Citizens more privileged than others, it is about what the United States Government is not allowed to do.
OK, genius, you're not going to be running Windows 7 under BootCamp on a G4 machine anyway. "Oh no! Apple came to my house and said they were going to kill my dog unless I gave them money for a new computer! WAAH!"
"forced upgrade" means that somebody forces you. They come to your house and put you under duress. That's what 'force' means.
I don't advocate or not advocate the ipod or lockdown or whatever. I just don't think that the way you wish to use the device should have anything to do with how I wish to use the device. And if I wish to use the device in a way that it can't be used, I should use a different device.
I simply don't understand the problem. I don't think the iPad is particularly compelling, so I don't think I'll buy one. I just don't feel the need to make demands that other people do things my way.
"Are you telling us that we can't play with our devices, unless we get a less popular/functional one, because you don't want to or know how to play with yours?"
No, I'm telling you that you should make your purchasing decision, and I should make my purchasing decision, and we should stay out of each other's business. How's that sound?
There is no such thing as software engineering, unless we're talking about flight control software. Everything else is just dorking around with broken code.
Is that the 5% with, what, 90% of the wealth? Seems like they can swing it. If they're not paying 90% of the taxes, they're not paying their fair share.
And while the poor person might not pay Federal income tax, you better believe they pay a big fraction of their take-home pay in any number of taxes, directly and indirectly.
Gosh, it's almost like the world is a little more complicated than a GOP talking point...
"Or do you suppose they were all idiots, far beneath the American Super-Men, The Masters of the Universe?"
You presume an awful lot. As a matter of fact, Soviet naval doctrine did not emphasize projection of power the same way American navy doctrine did, so they did not have the same strategic need to be able to put air forces anywhere they wished.
It must be so nice to be able to just know what other people are thinking. You might want to get some practice, because you're really pretty far off in my case.
Let me be a little more verbose. If by "reasonably equipped enemy" you mean "enemy that a) has nuclear weapons and b) has a delivery system that can reliably penetrate the Aegis air defenses", I think there are very few "reasonably equipped enemies" to worry about.
Let me put this another way: The people who actually think about carrier deployment for a living have probably at least a passing familiarity with the notion of weapons that might go boom near carriers, and some rudimentary notions about how to prevent such a scenario.
Your mystery jet in the upper left corner is either a Panavia Tornado or a MiG-23 Flogger. I'm leaning towards Tornado, because of the pivoting weapon stations on the wings, and the lack of the folding ventral fin on most Floggers. It is not an A-7, which has a single large "sailor inhaler" inlet under the nosecone. I am pretty confident that it's not a SEPECAT Jaguar as the poster suggests, because of the large wing gloves that indicate to me that it's a variable-geometry design.
I've got a shiny nickel that says it's a Tornado.
And the F-22 does not have circular engine outlets, nor weapon rails on the wingtips. That picture is not of either the F-22 or the F-35. It also has red stars on the wings, which leads me to believe it's probably not supposed to be American.
I'm not sure if official renderings of the Sukhoi PAK-FA (the FGFA mentioned in the article) have been released, but there's nothing to say that it wouldn't be laid out similarly to an F-22. Fighter jets are shaped the way they are for a reason.
"Finally, this aircraft (in a 737 size aircraft) would have a span less than a 747, weigh about 2/3-3/4 of what a 737 weighs, and would use about 1/3 to 1/2 of the fuel of a 737."
You know that the 737 is Boeing's smallest airliner, right? I'm pretty sure the BWB concept is not going to show up first on a smallish airliner like that.
Mylar. And it's required to be kept in environmentally controlled rooms, and measured every time it's used.
Believe me, CAD is far superior. Any time some grognard talks about "Meh! Designing on a computer is BAD!" it's likely because they can't figure out their drafting program.
Surely you must be trolling. You don't get a half-hour's worth of navigation data from the map view on a GPS. You get about thirty seconds' worth, which is not much longer than my instrument scan pattern.
I can navigate perfectly well with a map and compass. A GPS is a tool I use to make my life easier. Like many tools, if you don't know what you're doing, you can get in big trouble.
If GPS maps are so useless, why does every airliner on the planet have one? THEY SHOULD BE USING SEXTANTS, BY GUM!
Slashdot Mirror
Don't know if you put any stock in what an aircraft manufacturer might say on the subject, but...
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_09/volcanic_story.html
Summary: If you find yourself flying into an ash cloud, turn around immediately.
So, yeah, maybe Branson wants a check, but flying into ash clouds is a very bad idea. And they don't show up on weather radar.
"which tells best how much of a VW that is."
I'm not sure I know what that means. VW says it's a VW, but it's made by Chrysler.
(I'm trying to figure out what either of those companies got out of the deal, but maybe I'm crazy...)
You know the new VW minivans are Dodge Caravans, right?
That's a pretty ignorant analysis.
Did the F-16 supplant the F-15? No.
Can you land an F-22 on a carrier? No. (You might be able to navalize it, but it would be a substantial effort.)
Can the F-22 land on a Marine amphibious assault ship? Oh HELL no.
Now I'm not arguing that either aircraft was or was not a well-run, cost-effective program. But these aircraft have different missions and different capabilities, and to equate them is silly.
"1> many docors have stated their intent to cease practicing under the new law for economic reasons"
Yeah, they said the same thing back in the 60s when Medicare came around.
And then their business went THROUGH THE FREAKIN' ROOF, and they allowed as how they might be willing to compromise their strongly-held principles.
Technically the Rights outlined in the constitution are a non-exhaustive list meaning they are only some rights amount many that citizens possess. Thus a right does not have to be explicitly in the constitution to be a valid legal right.
"citizens"
NO.
Those are rights that PEOPLE are endowed with, not granted by the government. This is a fundamental understanding of the concept. The Bill of Rights is not about what makes United States Citizens more privileged than others, it is about what the United States Government is not allowed to do.
OK, genius, you're not going to be running Windows 7 under BootCamp on a G4 machine anyway. "Oh no! Apple came to my house and said they were going to kill my dog unless I gave them money for a new computer! WAAH!"
"forced upgrade" means that somebody forces you. They come to your house and put you under duress. That's what 'force' means.
I don't advocate or not advocate the ipod or lockdown or whatever. I just don't think that the way you wish to use the device should have anything to do with how I wish to use the device. And if I wish to use the device in a way that it can't be used, I should use a different device.
I simply don't understand the problem. I don't think the iPad is particularly compelling, so I don't think I'll buy one. I just don't feel the need to make demands that other people do things my way.
And it's a vastly huger pile of crap, but who's counting?
"Are you telling us that we can't play with our devices, unless we get a less popular/functional one, because you don't want to or know how to play with yours?"
No, I'm telling you that you should make your purchasing decision, and I should make my purchasing decision, and we should stay out of each other's business. How's that sound?
Do you have any idea how many single points of failure there are in, say, a car?
Can I pay somebody to make sure I never have to listen to anything he or any of his media outlets says? There's a business model for you.
There is no such thing as software engineering, unless we're talking about flight control software. Everything else is just dorking around with broken code.
Is that the 5% with, what, 90% of the wealth? Seems like they can swing it. If they're not paying 90% of the taxes, they're not paying their fair share.
And while the poor person might not pay Federal income tax, you better believe they pay a big fraction of their take-home pay in any number of taxes, directly and indirectly.
Gosh, it's almost like the world is a little more complicated than a GOP talking point...
Well, I imagine that we'd have space hardware that's almost identical to what we have now, since every scrap is built by private companies.
I'm sure you had a point in there somewhere, but it was buried under a pretty big pile of not understanding how stuff gets made.
A screw, like the one in my circa 1982 LEGO motor battery block?
How hard that must have been for you. Do you need a hug?
"Or do you suppose they were all idiots, far beneath the American Super-Men, The Masters of the Universe?"
You presume an awful lot. As a matter of fact, Soviet naval doctrine did not emphasize projection of power the same way American navy doctrine did, so they did not have the same strategic need to be able to put air forces anywhere they wished.
It must be so nice to be able to just know what other people are thinking. You might want to get some practice, because you're really pretty far off in my case.
Let me be a little more verbose. If by "reasonably equipped enemy" you mean "enemy that a) has nuclear weapons and b) has a delivery system that can reliably penetrate the Aegis air defenses", I think there are very few "reasonably equipped enemies" to worry about.
Let me put this another way: The people who actually think about carrier deployment for a living have probably at least a passing familiarity with the notion of weapons that might go boom near carriers, and some rudimentary notions about how to prevent such a scenario.
And what does that have to do with artillery?
Your mystery jet in the upper left corner is either a Panavia Tornado or a MiG-23 Flogger. I'm leaning towards Tornado, because of the pivoting weapon stations on the wings, and the lack of the folding ventral fin on most Floggers. It is not an A-7, which has a single large "sailor inhaler" inlet under the nosecone. I am pretty confident that it's not a SEPECAT Jaguar as the poster suggests, because of the large wing gloves that indicate to me that it's a variable-geometry design.
I've got a shiny nickel that says it's a Tornado.
And the F-22 does not have circular engine outlets, nor weapon rails on the wingtips. That picture is not of either the F-22 or the F-35. It also has red stars on the wings, which leads me to believe it's probably not supposed to be American.
I'm not sure if official renderings of the Sukhoi PAK-FA (the FGFA mentioned in the article) have been released, but there's nothing to say that it wouldn't be laid out similarly to an F-22. Fighter jets are shaped the way they are for a reason.
"target practice for artillery"
What kind of artillery can strike a carrier battle group steaming 100 miles or more off the coast? What "sane estimates" are you citing?
"Finally, this aircraft (in a 737 size aircraft) would have a span less than a 747, weigh about 2/3-3/4 of what a 737 weighs, and would use about 1/3 to 1/2 of the fuel of a 737."
You know that the 737 is Boeing's smallest airliner, right? I'm pretty sure the BWB concept is not going to show up first on a smallish airliner like that.
Mylar. And it's required to be kept in environmentally controlled rooms, and measured every time it's used.
Believe me, CAD is far superior. Any time some grognard talks about "Meh! Designing on a computer is BAD!" it's likely because they can't figure out their drafting program.
What's wrong with printing? If I prefer it, and my print is more legible than my cursive, it's a better communication tool.
Surely you must be trolling. You don't get a half-hour's worth of navigation data from the map view on a GPS. You get about thirty seconds' worth, which is not much longer than my instrument scan pattern.
I can navigate perfectly well with a map and compass. A GPS is a tool I use to make my life easier. Like many tools, if you don't know what you're doing, you can get in big trouble.
If GPS maps are so useless, why does every airliner on the planet have one? THEY SHOULD BE USING SEXTANTS, BY GUM!