F22 is an "Air superiority" fighter, which means it's purpose is to clear the skies of hostile aircraft. This it can do in spades, before the hostiles even know they are targeted, they are dead. Doing this doesn't require having lots of missiles, it requires being effective in an engagement. and returning to do it again, over and over until the adversary cannot continue to sustain the losses. It takes time.
However, the F22 isn't the only asset we'd bring to a conflict over Taiwan. F18's, F16's, and even F35's would be used to great affect in keeping "ground targets" safe from air assaults. They'd be taking on the hostile ground attack aircraft, while the F22's would be concentrating on the hostile fighters. In any case, the F35 would likely hold it's own just fine, even with China's best fighters. But the biggest factor here is tactics and not hardware. Of course we won't know for sure until the shooting starts, but I have a feeling the USA has extremely effective tactics. Likely we'd catch the Chinese with their pants down and even if they managed to score some initial points, they'd be sent packing.
I'd be real surprised if the Navies of a number of countries haven't closely surveyed just about all such interesting sites in international waters. I'd be willing to bet that it's been decades since it was done.
After all, the finding of the Titanic really was just a military funded smoke screen, where the military was interested in a very close survey of some targets of military value and was willing to pay handsomely for the privilege. The "We are looking for the Titanic" was a clever cover story at the time that explained all the equipment and Ballard being along.
Any of the criteria cover longevity? What we really need is something that can comb the depths for weeks or months unattended. And bring back video/audio/sonar/etc for that entire time and let scientist thumb through it. Most of our current expeditions into the deep ocean are quick jaunts, I think some of the expeditions down to titanic took a day, and only a couple hours of that was actually at the wreck.
Well there are two problems here.. First is that you cannot take humans with you. It's just not possible to cram in all the necessary life support stuff and batteries to run it all into a pressure hull anybody can afford to build on this budget..... Second, just dumping the data into the hands of people requires that you first get the data to the surface which means you waste time at the surface or you are tethered to a boat that's pulling you around.
I don't think the tethered option is what they are looking for. They want more underwater drone than towed sonar array. Popping up to the surface might be viable, but I'm guessing the problem will really be data storage and compression...
The F35 was INTENDED to be this way. It's good enough to do the jobs it's been handed. Does it improve on any purpose build platform? No, but it wasn't intended to. The F35 was INTENDED to be cheaper and advance some important needs as seen by the pentagon. It compares favorably to any of the platforms it's intended to replace, but it was not expected to always exceed the capabilities of any single platform. It was supposed to be the utility platform of choice, durable, flexible and less expensive to operate.
So, can the F35 deliver the firepower of the A10's gun? Nope. But can the A10 claim to be stealth? Nope... Can the A10 be expected to perform combat air portals? No again. Can the F35 shoot up a tank? It will eventually have a gun, but it has missiles that can now, so Yes. The F35 is just fine as a ground support platform, besting most of the world's offerings in this role, even if there are platforms which exceed it's abilities in an area or two.
Is the F35 an Air to Air platform that is as good as the F16? No, the F16 is slightly better with a thrust to weight ratio of better than one and a lower wing loading so the F16 is a better dogfighter, but the F16 is decidedly NOT stealthy in any way and really isn't that good of a close air support platform. The F35 can defend itself and generally matches the performance of the bulk of the world's fighters in air to air engagements, so it's "good enough" to more than match 95% of the prospective aircraft it might actually face. Not to mention, it's a fine ground support platform.
The F35 has it's place in the world and just because there are platforms that are better in some feature or function than the F35 doesn't make it a bad choice. The F35 is the utility class aircraft, reasonably good at all it puts an effort into. As such, it's cheaper to build and operate. And THIS is where this aircraft exceeds (or eventually it will). I am confident that the program will realize their goals and provide an aircraft that is cheaper overall than the platforms it replaces. It will serve multiple branches of the service well and become the main work horse of militaries around the world. Which, if you remember, was the stated goals of the F35 program. BTW, nothing of the above should be construed to mean there is nothing to critique about this program and it's management. They've done some really boneheaded things and let the contractor take advantage of them at times but they will get there, albeit a bit slower and a bit more expensive than initially thought.
Seriously? The F22 has outclassed everything in the skies by a long shot. Even the F-18 is no match head to head as it gets shot down long before it ever knows the F22 is even there. Unless we intend to take on Russia or China over their home turf, what we purchased is sufficient. I'm sure we can contain either of them if they try to advance through some kind of proxy. Now if a real live shoot'n war breaks out with one or both, the number of F22's we have will be the least of our concerns, and yea, it would be nice to have a couple hundred more F22's if that happens, but unless the Russians and China are thinking suicidal thoughts, I don't see the point.
True.. However, the F35 isn't the only game in town for each of the roles it is designed for.
What the pentagon has done is to acquire purpose built, best in class, air superiority fighter in the F-22. These aircraft are what will take on the Chinese and Russian fighters and establish air superiority long before the F-35 starts doing it's business. So where the F-35 might not have a good ratio with the top of the line offerings from China or Russia, that's not a big issue, it can hold it's own with what's out there, but if attrition becomes an issue it will be a short term one once the F22's arrive.
We are not going into a ground war without owning the skies (or being stupid). In most of the world, the F-35 will be more than enough to establish air superiority and keep it, then load up with bombs and do the close air support role. In those places where the F-35 is outmatched in the skies the F-22 will take care of establishing air superiority and turn the area over to the cheaper F-35 to maintain.
Well, to be fair, neither Cruz or Trump are "establishment" republicans. In fact, most of the top prospective nominees on the republican side are pretty much outsider, non-establishment types. If you are an establishment republican, you are running no higher than about 5th in the polls... In my opinion, this fact is way over looked by most of the media and the significance of this way under played.
However, it is clear that candidates like Trump, Carson and Cruz are the ones with the best chance for the nomination which will make this presidential cycle very interesting indeed given the democrat's almost certainly nominating Hillary. But I'm getting the impression that what's really going to happen is that Trump will have a LOT of support going into the convention, but it will not be the majority by a long shot. There will be a brokered deal which will put someone a bit more establishment in the race than Trump. At that point, everything will hinge on what Trump does. If he goes independent, Hillary wins comfortably. If Trump backs down and supports the nominee, Hillary won't know what hit her in the electoral college... On the other hand, if Trump manages to broker a deal and becomes the nominee, Hillary will be behind most of the way but have a good chance if they come up with a good October surprise..
So what we will likely have is a race between the quintessential "Establishment" candidate on the left with Hillary and a anti-establishment like candidate on the right. This in a time where the majority is disapproving of the current establishment administration. Remember, there is a yearning in the public towards the non-establishment types these days, and that will draw voters away from what will clearly be the establishment candidate Hillary.
I still say Ted Cruz is actually Al Lewis from The Munsters.
Yea, I noticed that too... But still, Mr. Lewis certainly wouldn't have the same politics and I think he'd be more interesting to listen too. However, who he looks like has nothing to do with his politics....
Can we have a link to a credible site? I mean, CNN's one step above Fox News, but only barely in credibility.
Your liberal bias is showing....
If you carefully weed out commentary from hard news Fox News is no more credible than CNN. Both have their biased ax grinding opinions that often get confused as being facts. Both report the news they deem worthy of coverage and are beholden to their advertisers to attract the largest audience they can. Both report "news" accurately and both present content that is opinion and commentary about the news with their own brand of bias.
Where they *really* differ is in audience size and rate of change. CNN is in a long term down hill slide which has been going on for more than a decade. Fox is generally been able to attract a larger and larger audience in that same time frame. Fox is being successful, CNN is dying.
It is interesting that the common liberal refrain is that Fox News is lying about stuff while CNN isn't. Or the alternate perspective that Fox News is unbiased and CNN is. Reality is BOTH are biased in their own ways, and if anything Fox is more creditable given that it's audience is growing while CNN's is in decline...
As much as I don't like how the F-35 program has been managed... Trying to build an aircraft that is all things to all of the services was a really bad idea, but having common parts and support equipment will be a big advantage eventually which will someday help make up for the botched development effort.
The F35 isn't really that bad, considering. Yes it's behind schedule and over budget by quite a margin, but I think it has real possibilities and is well on it's way to realize much of it's expected capabilities in the air but will *really* be an advantage on the ground where all the services will share the same maintenance equipment, supply line and parts inventories. It's not a horrible platform for any of it's intended roles, in fact it really is acceptable in all of them. Yea, it's not exceptional in any role, but that's because it is a compromise solution to start with.
So, really, the F35 isn't going to turn out that bad, it's just going to be later and more expensive than intended.
Um.... Not exactly as there is no pair here and in "Twisted pair" the second conductor is key to how noise coupling is reduced by twisting two conductors.. However, if it helps you visualize it, feel free to think about it that way. What this design does is make the magnetic fields required smoother and easier to manage by giving the whole thing a bit of build in springiness as best I can tell. But hey, I'm just a software engineering geek who is trying to figure out how they think they can get the heat energy out of the reactor without causing a problem with the super cooling of the huge magnets required for this, so don't take my word for it...
Hey, to be fair.... Their Zeppelins where the killer technology of the day and even though they sparked a bit less than a revolution in transportation technology they certainly where on the cutting edge. Had the Hindenburg not burned and crashed in Lakehurst JN, live on the radio, I dare say these things would have at least changed the investment mix in passenger aviation up until war broke out two years later...
What you really need to look out for is how useless various Germen inventions turn out to actually be to the Germans themselves. They have had horrible luck in their timing... The zeppelin rage which would have ended abruptly at the start of WW2, even without the burn and crash that ended it 2 years sooner. The development of modern rocketry, only to have it's effectiveness fail to alter the effort to prevail in war, the fielding of the ONLY jet fighter of WW2 which out classed and out ran ANYTHING flying only too late to make a difference. Their inventions of navigating aircraft to precise locations over long distances using this new radio technology and the invention of RADAR prior to WW2. No Germany has lots of luck inventing things, but horrible luck with the timing and application of them.
Pesky thermodynamics of heat engines is going to be a problem here. Heat pumps require work input to move heat from a low temperature to a high one but you can get work out of heat flowing from a high temperature to a low one with a heat engine.
So.... The problem is (starting from INSIDE the reactor) you go from REALLY HIGH -> RELLY LOW -> ROOM temperature and unless you can harness the first transition and get work out of it, all you are going to do is put work into this....
If you are going for "man rated" in the commercial world, having a structural failure should *not* happen. The last Falcon 9 launch was due to a structural failure, long before it reached maximum G-loads as I recall.. I'd accept a valve, turbo pump, or even a control system failure as the cost of learning, but a structural failure that costs you the vehicle is a really bad indicator. Man rated systems should have significant safety margins, epically in its structure. I realize that this literally is "rocket science" but structural design and QA of structural components is really basic stuff here.
Should be viewable from just about anyplace in Central Florida, east of Orlando... Coco Beach would be nice, but Daytona Beach would work on a clear day. Heck, hop on Turtle mound road at New Smyrna and drive as far south as you can and hit the beach there, or stand in a clearing in Titusville looking east. Thousands of places to see this.
Yet, if you count the launch failures, the Atlas is more reliable by far than the Falcon family currently looks. Falcon will literally have to be perfect for nearly 50 launches to match the Atlas' reliability. Some how, I just don't see that in the cards for Falcon and SpaceX...
I haven't had a serious case of the flu for about 5 years and I figure it's because I get the shot every year for medical reasons (a member of my immediate family takes immune suppressants). (Wednesday December 09, 2015 @06:18PM)
Everybody in the household gets them and yes, it's for hard medical reasons. The one who has the compromised immune system gets the enhanced version of the shot as well, but the danger is still real so we all must be careful for their sake.
Eventually your Mac will acquire a virus, you should be ready to find and deal with it. Right now you are relatively safe because Mac's are a fairly small market share and has a very tightly controlled ecosystem, and you have good hygiene habits apparently (like washing your hands often when going out in public can keep you from getting the flu.) But, even the guy who lives in the remote cabin can catch something when going into town for supplies...
Slashdot Mirror
So.... Who shot John F. Kennedy?
Why, John W. Booth did, in the library, with the wrench....
I live near the bridge, and have driven across it a few times.
RIIIIGHT...
Let me guess, you want to sell me a bridge too...
F22 is an "Air superiority" fighter, which means it's purpose is to clear the skies of hostile aircraft. This it can do in spades, before the hostiles even know they are targeted, they are dead. Doing this doesn't require having lots of missiles, it requires being effective in an engagement. and returning to do it again, over and over until the adversary cannot continue to sustain the losses. It takes time.
However, the F22 isn't the only asset we'd bring to a conflict over Taiwan. F18's, F16's, and even F35's would be used to great affect in keeping "ground targets" safe from air assaults. They'd be taking on the hostile ground attack aircraft, while the F22's would be concentrating on the hostile fighters. In any case, the F35 would likely hold it's own just fine, even with China's best fighters. But the biggest factor here is tactics and not hardware. Of course we won't know for sure until the shooting starts, but I have a feeling the USA has extremely effective tactics. Likely we'd catch the Chinese with their pants down and even if they managed to score some initial points, they'd be sent packing.
I'd be real surprised if the Navies of a number of countries haven't closely surveyed just about all such interesting sites in international waters. I'd be willing to bet that it's been decades since it was done.
After all, the finding of the Titanic really was just a military funded smoke screen, where the military was interested in a very close survey of some targets of military value and was willing to pay handsomely for the privilege. The "We are looking for the Titanic" was a clever cover story at the time that explained all the equipment and Ballard being along.
Any of the criteria cover longevity? What we really need is something that can comb the depths for weeks or months unattended. And bring back video/audio/sonar/etc for that entire time and let scientist thumb through it. Most of our current expeditions into the deep ocean are quick jaunts, I think some of the expeditions down to titanic took a day, and only a couple hours of that was actually at the wreck.
Well there are two problems here.. First is that you cannot take humans with you. It's just not possible to cram in all the necessary life support stuff and batteries to run it all into a pressure hull anybody can afford to build on this budget..... Second, just dumping the data into the hands of people requires that you first get the data to the surface which means you waste time at the surface or you are tethered to a boat that's pulling you around.
I don't think the tethered option is what they are looking for. They want more underwater drone than towed sonar array. Popping up to the surface might be viable, but I'm guessing the problem will really be data storage and compression...
Sorry, Not the F18... The F16 is the air to air platform to beat... Not that the F18 is bad in its own right...
The F35 was INTENDED to be this way. It's good enough to do the jobs it's been handed. Does it improve on any purpose build platform? No, but it wasn't intended to. The F35 was INTENDED to be cheaper and advance some important needs as seen by the pentagon. It compares favorably to any of the platforms it's intended to replace, but it was not expected to always exceed the capabilities of any single platform. It was supposed to be the utility platform of choice, durable, flexible and less expensive to operate.
So, can the F35 deliver the firepower of the A10's gun? Nope. But can the A10 claim to be stealth? Nope... Can the A10 be expected to perform combat air portals? No again. Can the F35 shoot up a tank? It will eventually have a gun, but it has missiles that can now, so Yes. The F35 is just fine as a ground support platform, besting most of the world's offerings in this role, even if there are platforms which exceed it's abilities in an area or two.
Is the F35 an Air to Air platform that is as good as the F16? No, the F16 is slightly better with a thrust to weight ratio of better than one and a lower wing loading so the F16 is a better dogfighter, but the F16 is decidedly NOT stealthy in any way and really isn't that good of a close air support platform. The F35 can defend itself and generally matches the performance of the bulk of the world's fighters in air to air engagements, so it's "good enough" to more than match 95% of the prospective aircraft it might actually face. Not to mention, it's a fine ground support platform.
The F35 has it's place in the world and just because there are platforms that are better in some feature or function than the F35 doesn't make it a bad choice. The F35 is the utility class aircraft, reasonably good at all it puts an effort into. As such, it's cheaper to build and operate. And THIS is where this aircraft exceeds (or eventually it will). I am confident that the program will realize their goals and provide an aircraft that is cheaper overall than the platforms it replaces. It will serve multiple branches of the service well and become the main work horse of militaries around the world. Which, if you remember, was the stated goals of the F35 program. BTW, nothing of the above should be construed to mean there is nothing to critique about this program and it's management. They've done some really boneheaded things and let the contractor take advantage of them at times but they will get there, albeit a bit slower and a bit more expensive than initially thought.
Seriously? The F22 has outclassed everything in the skies by a long shot. Even the F-18 is no match head to head as it gets shot down long before it ever knows the F22 is even there. Unless we intend to take on Russia or China over their home turf, what we purchased is sufficient. I'm sure we can contain either of them if they try to advance through some kind of proxy. Now if a real live shoot'n war breaks out with one or both, the number of F22's we have will be the least of our concerns, and yea, it would be nice to have a couple hundred more F22's if that happens, but unless the Russians and China are thinking suicidal thoughts, I don't see the point.
True.. However, the F35 isn't the only game in town for each of the roles it is designed for.
What the pentagon has done is to acquire purpose built, best in class, air superiority fighter in the F-22. These aircraft are what will take on the Chinese and Russian fighters and establish air superiority long before the F-35 starts doing it's business. So where the F-35 might not have a good ratio with the top of the line offerings from China or Russia, that's not a big issue, it can hold it's own with what's out there, but if attrition becomes an issue it will be a short term one once the F22's arrive.
We are not going into a ground war without owning the skies (or being stupid). In most of the world, the F-35 will be more than enough to establish air superiority and keep it, then load up with bombs and do the close air support role. In those places where the F-35 is outmatched in the skies the F-22 will take care of establishing air superiority and turn the area over to the cheaper F-35 to maintain.
Well, to be fair, neither Cruz or Trump are "establishment" republicans. In fact, most of the top prospective nominees on the republican side are pretty much outsider, non-establishment types. If you are an establishment republican, you are running no higher than about 5th in the polls... In my opinion, this fact is way over looked by most of the media and the significance of this way under played.
However, it is clear that candidates like Trump, Carson and Cruz are the ones with the best chance for the nomination which will make this presidential cycle very interesting indeed given the democrat's almost certainly nominating Hillary. But I'm getting the impression that what's really going to happen is that Trump will have a LOT of support going into the convention, but it will not be the majority by a long shot. There will be a brokered deal which will put someone a bit more establishment in the race than Trump. At that point, everything will hinge on what Trump does. If he goes independent, Hillary wins comfortably. If Trump backs down and supports the nominee, Hillary won't know what hit her in the electoral college... On the other hand, if Trump manages to broker a deal and becomes the nominee, Hillary will be behind most of the way but have a good chance if they come up with a good October surprise..
So what we will likely have is a race between the quintessential "Establishment" candidate on the left with Hillary and a anti-establishment like candidate on the right. This in a time where the majority is disapproving of the current establishment administration. Remember, there is a yearning in the public towards the non-establishment types these days, and that will draw voters away from what will clearly be the establishment candidate Hillary.
Yea, and kill half of the population of the USA, yea that's going to help... Real bright idea there AC..
Way to miss the point... Do you work for CNN or MSNBC?
I still say Ted Cruz is actually Al Lewis from The Munsters.
Yea, I noticed that too... But still, Mr. Lewis certainly wouldn't have the same politics and I think he'd be more interesting to listen too. However, who he looks like has nothing to do with his politics....
Throw more money at it.
I'll fix it, throw the money at me... PLEASE!
Can we have a link to a credible site? I mean, CNN's one step above Fox News, but only barely in credibility.
Your liberal bias is showing....
If you carefully weed out commentary from hard news Fox News is no more credible than CNN. Both have their biased ax grinding opinions that often get confused as being facts. Both report the news they deem worthy of coverage and are beholden to their advertisers to attract the largest audience they can. Both report "news" accurately and both present content that is opinion and commentary about the news with their own brand of bias.
Where they *really* differ is in audience size and rate of change. CNN is in a long term down hill slide which has been going on for more than a decade. Fox is generally been able to attract a larger and larger audience in that same time frame. Fox is being successful, CNN is dying.
It is interesting that the common liberal refrain is that Fox News is lying about stuff while CNN isn't. Or the alternate perspective that Fox News is unbiased and CNN is. Reality is BOTH are biased in their own ways, and if anything Fox is more creditable given that it's audience is growing while CNN's is in decline ...
As much as I don't like how the F-35 program has been managed... Trying to build an aircraft that is all things to all of the services was a really bad idea, but having common parts and support equipment will be a big advantage eventually which will someday help make up for the botched development effort.
The F35 isn't really that bad, considering. Yes it's behind schedule and over budget by quite a margin, but I think it has real possibilities and is well on it's way to realize much of it's expected capabilities in the air but will *really* be an advantage on the ground where all the services will share the same maintenance equipment, supply line and parts inventories. It's not a horrible platform for any of it's intended roles, in fact it really is acceptable in all of them. Yea, it's not exceptional in any role, but that's because it is a compromise solution to start with.
So, really, the F35 isn't going to turn out that bad, it's just going to be later and more expensive than intended.
Um.... Not exactly as there is no pair here and in "Twisted pair" the second conductor is key to how noise coupling is reduced by twisting two conductors.. However, if it helps you visualize it, feel free to think about it that way. What this design does is make the magnetic fields required smoother and easier to manage by giving the whole thing a bit of build in springiness as best I can tell. But hey, I'm just a software engineering geek who is trying to figure out how they think they can get the heat energy out of the reactor without causing a problem with the super cooling of the huge magnets required for this, so don't take my word for it...
Hey, to be fair.... Their Zeppelins where the killer technology of the day and even though they sparked a bit less than a revolution in transportation technology they certainly where on the cutting edge. Had the Hindenburg not burned and crashed in Lakehurst JN, live on the radio, I dare say these things would have at least changed the investment mix in passenger aviation up until war broke out two years later...
What you really need to look out for is how useless various Germen inventions turn out to actually be to the Germans themselves. They have had horrible luck in their timing... The zeppelin rage which would have ended abruptly at the start of WW2, even without the burn and crash that ended it 2 years sooner. The development of modern rocketry, only to have it's effectiveness fail to alter the effort to prevail in war, the fielding of the ONLY jet fighter of WW2 which out classed and out ran ANYTHING flying only too late to make a difference. Their inventions of navigating aircraft to precise locations over long distances using this new radio technology and the invention of RADAR prior to WW2. No Germany has lots of luck inventing things, but horrible luck with the timing and application of them.
Pesky thermodynamics of heat engines is going to be a problem here. Heat pumps require work input to move heat from a low temperature to a high one but you can get work out of heat flowing from a high temperature to a low one with a heat engine.
So.... The problem is (starting from INSIDE the reactor) you go from REALLY HIGH -> RELLY LOW -> ROOM temperature and unless you can harness the first transition and get work out of it, all you are going to do is put work into this....
Not much to their certification... It only covers how to replace the Linux boot loader...
"bootrec /fixmbr"
That's it, you are now Microsoft certified in Linux...
.
.
For you shills out there, I'm making a joke..
If you are going for "man rated" in the commercial world, having a structural failure should *not* happen. The last Falcon 9 launch was due to a structural failure, long before it reached maximum G-loads as I recall.. I'd accept a valve, turbo pump, or even a control system failure as the cost of learning, but a structural failure that costs you the vehicle is a really bad indicator. Man rated systems should have significant safety margins, epically in its structure. I realize that this literally is "rocket science" but structural design and QA of structural components is really basic stuff here.
Should be viewable from just about anyplace in Central Florida, east of Orlando... Coco Beach would be nice, but Daytona Beach would work on a clear day. Heck, hop on Turtle mound road at New Smyrna and drive as far south as you can and hit the beach there, or stand in a clearing in Titusville looking east. Thousands of places to see this.
Yet, if you count the launch failures, the Atlas is more reliable by far than the Falcon family currently looks. Falcon will literally have to be perfect for nearly 50 launches to match the Atlas' reliability. Some how, I just don't see that in the cards for Falcon and SpaceX...
You didn't read the whole thread eh?
I haven't had a serious case of the flu for about 5 years and I figure it's because I get the shot every year for medical reasons (a member of my immediate family takes immune suppressants). (Wednesday December 09, 2015 @06:18PM)
Everybody in the household gets them and yes, it's for hard medical reasons. The one who has the compromised immune system gets the enhanced version of the shot as well, but the danger is still real so we all must be careful for their sake.
Eventually your Mac will acquire a virus, you should be ready to find and deal with it. Right now you are relatively safe because Mac's are a fairly small market share and has a very tightly controlled ecosystem, and you have good hygiene habits apparently (like washing your hands often when going out in public can keep you from getting the flu.) But, even the guy who lives in the remote cabin can catch something when going into town for supplies...