Not if the UCAV can pull 20G's, he can't. Taking the pilot out of the bird makes the handling envelope a lot wider.
You say that AI for fighters isn't there yet, but air to air missiles do pretty damn good. Running an intercept autonomously is just an extension of the geometry that AAMs do.
Remote piloting is a Bad Idea. Having a datalink with enough bandwidth to give the pilot proper situational awareness is just not very practical IMO. Remote direction and targeting is VERY feasible, and then you can hand off the targets to the on-board intercept computer to fly the attack.
You know, the Wright Brothers flew an airplane in 1903, so really it's ridiculous to think that there might be any advancement in the state of the art since then.
OF COURSE it's a refinement of something that dates back quite some time. So are 99.4% of the objects you encounter on a daily basis. What's your point?
If you want to cry about defense budgets, at least get some arguments that mean something.
The F-35 looks like a Northrop F-5. Nobody but Tom Cruise (who flew against F-5 "MiG's" in Top Gun) is scared of F-5's. The Boeing design at least looked like it could eat you.
Boeing's design was cleaner, simpler, and fit the spec document. I'd love to know why they REALLY lost.
Guess you slept through that whole Desert Storm thing, where everybody's job was to make sure the tanks (you know, those big rolly-on-the-ground things with the big gun on top) and the APC's (kinda like a van, only with a 25mm gun, and thermal vision equipment, and a bunch of guys with M-16's inside) could drive (you know, on the ground) to the places they wanted to hold.
Nobody with two neurons to bang together and any understanding of warfare thinks that the Army is obsolete. In a very real sense, the Army is the ONLY service that matters: everybody else's job is to get those poor bastards on the ground to their destination as safely as possible.
Why do you think they call it close air SUPPORT and artillery SUPPORT and logistics SUPPORT? Hint: They're not talking about supporting their gonads. They're talking about supporting the guys on the ground.
Yup. The Air Force variant will get a fuel tank in place of the lift fan, and the Navy variant will get some more fuel and an option for a RIO. Navy also gets a bigger wing and empennage (for better range and low-speed controllability) and more internal fuel capacity.
The only reason that the A-10 was not scrapped is that the Army raised holy hell about it. They were going to buy every last one of the A-10 fleet, but then the Air Force relented and deigned to continue operating the plane. Of course, they gave the overwhelming majority of them to reservists.
All because the Air Force will not tolerate the Army having armed fixed-wing aircraft. The AF tried to get armed helicopters scrapped too, but fortunately they failed.
All kinds of stories like that from the bad old days of inter-service pissing contests. That's supposed to be a thing of the past...I sure hope it is!
Sometimes a 30mm cannon is just a 30mm cannon. Before you get all excited about penis analogues, I'd like you to design me a weapon that can destroy tanks and looks like a vagina, and then show me that it's more effective than one shaped like a cylinder.
You want to presuppose laser swords? Fine. Want to make explosions make noise in space? Great! Just don't change the rules half-way through. It's not playing fair with the audience!
You're right. The fact that these wastebasket-sized seismic charges, unlike that candy ass firecracker called the Death Star, have sounds that travel at a finite speed.
Wait, what's the speed of sound in a vacuum again? Oh yeah! There isn't one!
Yes, they were cool sound effects, but the pause was VERY contrived and VERY distracting.
The person you are arguing with is obviously a Randian objectivist, and is therefore capable only of the most infantile logical arguments, like the identity principle. They're not comfortable with the idea of a tide raising all boats...they typically think that they have a divine right to have mo' than everybody else. In other words, don't hold your breath for well-thought-out explanation. Just unenlightened selfishness.
No, but there is something evil about using political and economic power to take more money away from the not rich and therefore become more rich. That is what the poster was talking about.
SpeedVision does excellent, well-edited, coverage of endurance races.
As far as the best wheel-to-wheel racing action goes, British touring car races simply can not be beat. Those guys are NUTS. Very competitive, very fast, very unpredictable. Kinda like NASCAR, only interesting.
There are two dimensions to car racing: The driver, and the engineers (and mechanics). Me, I think 24 Hours at LeMans is the best race out there, simply because it's so outrageously punishing on the machines. Your car has to be designed and built RIGHT in order to be competitive. Sure, you need fast driving too, but that race is won and lost on the drawing board and in pit lane. Great great stuff.
Different strokes for different folks, of course. Guess you could just watch NASCAR. "Geez, Darrell, just put your foot on the floor and turn left! 'Tain't all that complicated!"
And they're not THAT concerned with green-ness because they don't pay much attention to the really nasty chemicals used to make PV cells. PV is not good technology right now.
The only high-quality product HP have made (in my experience) is their calculator line. I got roped into supporting an HP LJ1000 USB laser on my workgroup LAN. The thing was an absolute disaster as a low usage network printer (like, 10 pages a day or so). The host computer would simply lose the printer every four hours or so, necessitating a reboot. My dad's DeskJet 690 is a continuing disaster...garbage prints, stupid bad drivers, computer can't find the damn thing half the time...
And don't even get me started on their loathsome PC's. I am immediately suspicious of any case with a warranty seal on the back, especially if it has free slots inside.
So, their printers are crap, their computers are crap, their calculator development is halted...I'm all for treating your employees well, but what about the customers?
Oh yeah! And they just merged with the second worst PC manufacturer on the planet.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if the UCAV can pull 20G's, he can't. Taking the pilot out of the bird makes the handling envelope a lot wider.
You say that AI for fighters isn't there yet, but air to air missiles do pretty damn good. Running an intercept autonomously is just an extension of the geometry that AAMs do.
Remote piloting is a Bad Idea. Having a datalink with enough bandwidth to give the pilot proper situational awareness is just not very practical IMO. Remote direction and targeting is VERY feasible, and then you can hand off the targets to the on-board intercept computer to fly the attack.
Yup, I bet nobody in the military has thought of that.
Frequency agile satellite data links are REALLY hard to jam. LOS laser data links are almost impossible to jam.
Don't worry. The people solving these problems are at least as smart as you are, and considerably better funded.
You know, the Wright Brothers flew an airplane in 1903, so really it's ridiculous to think that there might be any advancement in the state of the art since then.
OF COURSE it's a refinement of something that dates back quite some time. So are 99.4% of the objects you encounter on a daily basis. What's your point?
If you want to cry about defense budgets, at least get some arguments that mean something.
Ummm...GD was sold to Lockheed. NG is now part of Boeing. The point stands.
The F-35 looks like a Northrop F-5. Nobody but Tom Cruise (who flew against F-5 "MiG's" in Top Gun) is scared of F-5's. The Boeing design at least looked like it could eat you.
Boeing's design was cleaner, simpler, and fit the spec document. I'd love to know why they REALLY lost.
"Thud" was the F-104 Thunderchief. I think you have your airplanes mixed up.
Guess you slept through that whole Desert Storm thing, where everybody's job was to make sure the tanks (you know, those big rolly-on-the-ground things with the big gun on top) and the APC's (kinda like a van, only with a 25mm gun, and thermal vision equipment, and a bunch of guys with M-16's inside) could drive (you know, on the ground) to the places they wanted to hold.
Nobody with two neurons to bang together and any understanding of warfare thinks that the Army is obsolete. In a very real sense, the Army is the ONLY service that matters: everybody else's job is to get those poor bastards on the ground to their destination as safely as possible.
Why do you think they call it close air SUPPORT and artillery SUPPORT and logistics SUPPORT? Hint: They're not talking about supporting their gonads. They're talking about supporting the guys on the ground.
Yup. The Air Force variant will get a fuel tank in place of the lift fan, and the Navy variant will get some more fuel and an option for a RIO. Navy also gets a bigger wing and empennage (for better range and low-speed controllability) and more internal fuel capacity.
The only reason that the A-10 was not scrapped is that the Army raised holy hell about it. They were going to buy every last one of the A-10 fleet, but then the Air Force relented and deigned to continue operating the plane. Of course, they gave the overwhelming majority of them to reservists.
All because the Air Force will not tolerate the Army having armed fixed-wing aircraft. The AF tried to get armed helicopters scrapped too, but fortunately they failed.
All kinds of stories like that from the bad old days of inter-service pissing contests. That's supposed to be a thing of the past...I sure hope it is!
Sometimes a 30mm cannon is just a 30mm cannon. Before you get all excited about penis analogues, I'd like you to design me a weapon that can destroy tanks and looks like a vagina, and then show me that it's more effective than one shaped like a cylinder.
Meaningless distinction. : )
Skinny ectomorphic geek...with a wife? LIAR! FRAUD!
...just a joke, son. Move along. : )
Mars.
No atmosphere yet, but I'm workin' on it. : )
Willful suspension of disbelief.
You want to presuppose laser swords? Fine. Want to make explosions make noise in space? Great! Just don't change the rules half-way through. It's not playing fair with the audience!
Dense enough to carry a sound wave to a camera vantage point a couple thousand yards away? Where do they put all that plasma in the wastebasket?
My contention isn't that it's not explainable...it's just not consistent with the other four movies. It's contrived.
You're right. The fact that these wastebasket-sized seismic charges, unlike that candy ass firecracker called the Death Star, have sounds that travel at a finite speed.
Wait, what's the speed of sound in a vacuum again? Oh yeah! There isn't one!
Yes, they were cool sound effects, but the pause was VERY contrived and VERY distracting.
The person you are arguing with is obviously a Randian objectivist, and is therefore capable only of the most infantile logical arguments, like the identity principle. They're not comfortable with the idea of a tide raising all boats...they typically think that they have a divine right to have mo' than everybody else. In other words, don't hold your breath for well-thought-out explanation. Just unenlightened selfishness.
Sure, I'm trollin'. It's fun.
No, but there is something evil about using political and economic power to take more money away from the not rich and therefore become more rich. That is what the poster was talking about.
SpeedVision does excellent, well-edited, coverage of endurance races.
As far as the best wheel-to-wheel racing action goes, British touring car races simply can not be beat. Those guys are NUTS. Very competitive, very fast, very unpredictable. Kinda like NASCAR, only interesting.
There are two dimensions to car racing: The driver, and the engineers (and mechanics). Me, I think 24 Hours at LeMans is the best race out there, simply because it's so outrageously punishing on the machines. Your car has to be designed and built RIGHT in order to be competitive. Sure, you need fast driving too, but that race is won and lost on the drawing board and in pit lane. Great great stuff.
Different strokes for different folks, of course. Guess you could just watch NASCAR. "Geez, Darrell, just put your foot on the floor and turn left! 'Tain't all that complicated!"
I guess the thing that amuses me most is that some people probably understood this post. : )
Wow. That rhymes.
How "minor" it is is...wait for it...relative. To your frame of reference.
And they're not THAT concerned with green-ness because they don't pay much attention to the really nasty chemicals used to make PV cells. PV is not good technology right now.
The one with the bosoms and the heaving and the...
Yeah. I'd be distracted too. Yum. : )
The only high-quality product HP have made (in my experience) is their calculator line. I got roped into supporting an HP LJ1000 USB laser on my workgroup LAN. The thing was an absolute disaster as a low usage network printer (like, 10 pages a day or so). The host computer would simply lose the printer every four hours or so, necessitating a reboot. My dad's DeskJet 690 is a continuing disaster...garbage prints, stupid bad drivers, computer can't find the damn thing half the time...
And don't even get me started on their loathsome PC's. I am immediately suspicious of any case with a warranty seal on the back, especially if it has free slots inside.
So, their printers are crap, their computers are crap, their calculator development is halted...I'm all for treating your employees well, but what about the customers?
Oh yeah! And they just merged with the second worst PC manufacturer on the planet.
Why would I buy their products again?