To be fair, I know a few people that rent rooms via Airbnb, and while one or two actually do have extra space that they can rent, the majority either own dedicated rental properties near a beach, or travel quite a bit for work, and rent their primary residences while they're away.
I know that this is purely anecdotal, but not everyone that rents via Airbnb is a rich, selfish snob who doesn't need any extra money.
Agreed. NYC has become such an insane town, government-wise, I shudder to think about ever going back. I mean, between soda bans, elevator bans, and their constant harassment over any business that innovates and turns a profit, like Airbnb or Uber, it just feels like Bloomberg and the rest of the town council, have done nothing but create a hostile environment for everyone. I love NYC, I really do. There's nothing better than walking through NYC on a cold winter's morning, eating a potato knish, but damn, it's gotten insane up there.
There is nothing in the code that's an AND or OR statement that can fix this, it has to do with the signals that the systems can receive and decode. Sure, they can receive the military signal, but they can't decode it, because they don't have the encryption keys. I don't think you have a workaround for that.
Yep, though the accuracy issues aren't what is changed with regards to civilian vs. military grade GPS units. The civilian grade units don't work above a certain altitude or velocity. Military grade units use a different signal with encryption, and can operate outside of these restricted envelopes, with a rough increase in accuracy (about 1m vs. 2m).
You need the crypto-keys to be able to access the military channel. Civilian GPS is good, but as has been stated above, does not work at speeds exceeding mach 1 or at altitudes above 60,000 feet.
Definitely relative to the service you were in. The US military, from what I've seen (almost nine years as a contractor on various systems), uses military grade gear with encryption. I don't understand all the signals, but I do know that they're not just a GPS chip from an iPhone.
It's more likely that there are some sort of cryto-keys required to access the other signal bases. Without those keys, you're SOL, even if you could reverse engineer the software.
The systems they're installing on these F-16s are simple systems that allow them to program a predetermined route, or perhaps fly via a data link. It does not allow them to drop ordinance or engage in dog fights with enemy aggressors.
Yes, the airframes are sunk costs, and would be otherwise retired, but the development costs of a weapons system to fly an unmanned fighter into hostile territory, deliver a payload, possibly fight an aggressor with guns and/or missiles, then return to base and land will be very high, much higher than the USAF is going to spend on this. Just the test regime on these aircraft would be several years long, and it would be probably 2017 before they dropped any ordinance, even on a dummy target.
Oh no, I get all that. All I'm saying is that the DoD isn't going to invest heavily in an autonomous/remotely-piloted system to run obsolete F-16s against enemy fighters or use them for ground attack. They've got Predator A and B models, and the C model will come online soon. They've got state of the art Falcons and Super Hornets for attack. They've got B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s for saturation bombing. They've got Eagles and Raptors for air superiority. They'll have the F-35 for all these roles (minus strategic bombing) active within the next five years.
Why spend all that money?
The F-16 is a great platform, and honestly, I think the USAF should continue buying them for decades to come. They're small, light, cheap, nimble, fast, and work very well at what they do. That said, I think their biggest draw is that they're cheap. Compared to the F-22 and F-35, they're chump change.
That list definitely has more on it than I expected. I went by the list that Wikipedia has on the main F-16 page, that lists the countries that have used the F-16 in actual combat. I probably should have dug a little deeper.
Looking at the list you provided, Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey are certainly the most likely to be volatile. Egypt certainly does operate a formidable force - 224 in various configurations. Pakistan operates 63. Turkey operates 240, plus another 30 that are likely to come online within the next few years. Also, Turkey's force is probably the most up-to-date, behind our own.
So, that said, with the exception of those three cases, which I agree, could cause trouble at any time, and operate decently sized fleets, most countries have a dozen of these, and many are older models. I look at a lot of this in the same way that I look at the US Navy selling out-of-date Adams-class Destroyers to the Greeks, or Kidd-class Destroyers to the RoC. The money is going to get spent, and the systems are going to be bought, either from the US, Russia, Germany, Spain, or whomever. When we're selling out-of-date equipment, we've got the upper hand. Not only do we have their money, but we know exactly how their systems work and how to defeat them. Heck, even when we sell the latest AEGIS derivatives to Spain, Norway, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, they don't get everything, and nothing that they get is as good or better than what the US Navy gets.
I was slightly off - 6,500 pounds total; but the max gross takeoff weight for the Predator C is over 18,000 pounds. I'm not sure where you got your information, but you're wrong.
That said, just because a weapons platform doesn't currently support a weapons system, doesn't mean it won't. The Predator C is still in development, yet it already has the capability to deliver JDAMs in 500, 1,000, and 2,000 pound variants, SDBs, and Hellfires. Both the JSOW and the HARM are within the Avenger's load profile, so all it takes is some integration. If the DoD saw a need to incorporate that, they'd do it.
But, that won't always be true, especially in today's world, with look down shoot down radar systems, long range air-to-air missiles, and stealthy aircraft. An F-22 can see a bandit a hundred miles away, from a much greater altitude, fire a missile, and go about his business without the bandit ever knowing the F-22 was there.
In a straight dogfight, using guns, I'd definitely say that the veteran pilot has the battle well in hand, 99% of the time. Thrust vectoring on the F-22 might be the only instance where a greener pilot has the upper hand, but you don't get to be an F-22 pilot without having a LOT of stick time.
Agreed. I'm sure that a really good, veteran pilot could make the F-4 do things that a relative newbie in an F-22 couldn't handle, and could probably defeat them, under certain circumstances.
The US has sold the F-16 to the following countries: Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Venezuela.
Of those, all are allies, with the exception of Venezuela, and you can't even say that they're openly hostile to the US, other than Chavez's failed BS tactics. The new president, Maduro, is far more amicable, despite leaning towards a Communist viewpoint. Further, Venezuela only has 9 operational F-16s, and they're A/B models.
The new Predator C model (Avenger) will be able to fly faster (460 MPH) and loiter for up to 18 hours while carrying a payload of 6,800 pounds. Pretty badass.
What is its use, then? Dropping ordinance on American citizens in the US? Dropping ordinance on terrorists in Afghanistan? Syria?
The Predator B (Reaper) and Predator C (Avenger) variants can drop a decent amount of ordinance (3,800 pounds and 6,800 pounds, respectively), loiter for much longer, and operate completely autonomously. The F-16 can only handle 9,000 pounds of ordinance, making this pretty much useless as a UCAV.
This is just a way to use up old equipment in a way that they've been doing for decades. If you really believe this is going to be some super secret way to kill brown people, you're just really dumb.
Go look at the Constitution and find the place where the federal government is charged with building roads, water treatment plants, and providing education. I'll wait.
Meanwhile, the part about general defense is clearly defined.
They've been doing this for decades with aircraft that have outlived their useful lives. Even though this is probably still more capable than the aircraft that half the aggressor nations we'd ever face would field, we've got better and badder systems to deliver heavy ordinance. 9,000 pounds of bombs simply isn't enough to justify the cost of turning these things into more badass Predator drones.
These will be used for both destructive and non-destructive testing and training, and there's zero chance they'll be used for ordinance delivery. An MQ-9 Reaper can deliver almost 4,000 pounds of ordinance, and this can carry a little more than double that. The upcoming Predator 'C' variant, the Avenger, will be able to carry almost 7,000 pounds of ordinance, is stealthy, is faster than the Predator or Reaper, and can loiter for up to 18 hours.
Yep! The designation for the remotely piloted fighter aircraft is QF. I'm always sad to see some of our fighting birds go down, but I'm happy that these are really going to go to good use. The previous QF aircraft were much older aircraft, and even in the case of your QF-4, I don't believe them to be an adequate match, when it comes to mimicking the capabilities of fighter aircraft that we might see from an aggressor nation. These QF-16s, while older A/B models, will present a much more realistic target, as they're small, light, very nimble, and very fast. I'd rather see them go down in a blaze of glory than just in mothballs.
I agree with you on most points, however, the proposed 'AEGIS Ashore' program that will place SM-3 interceptors in Europe (Romania and Poland), and use the SPY-1D(V) radar that the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class Destroyers use, will likely put at least 100 interceptors on-site in VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells that are similar to those used by the Navy's DDGs and CGs. The DDGs can carry up to 96, while CGs can carry up to 128 (though that number is usually much smaller, due to inventory of SM-2, SM-6, ESSM, and Tomahawk missiles).
The good thing about the whole system is that it's modular, so if things really started to hit the fan, additional VLS modules could be mated, which would bring the capacity up significantly. That said, there's zero chance that, if a MAD-scenario ever played out, every incoming missile could be destroyed, even considering all the Burkes and Ticos that have BMD capability. There's just not enough SM-3s out there.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, I know a few people that rent rooms via Airbnb, and while one or two actually do have extra space that they can rent, the majority either own dedicated rental properties near a beach, or travel quite a bit for work, and rent their primary residences while they're away.
I know that this is purely anecdotal, but not everyone that rents via Airbnb is a rich, selfish snob who doesn't need any extra money.
Agreed. NYC has become such an insane town, government-wise, I shudder to think about ever going back. I mean, between soda bans, elevator bans, and their constant harassment over any business that innovates and turns a profit, like Airbnb or Uber, it just feels like Bloomberg and the rest of the town council, have done nothing but create a hostile environment for everyone. I love NYC, I really do. There's nothing better than walking through NYC on a cold winter's morning, eating a potato knish, but damn, it's gotten insane up there.
Yes, you do. You can receive the signal, but you can't decrypt the data that it contains without the crypto keys.
There is nothing in the code that's an AND or OR statement that can fix this, it has to do with the signals that the systems can receive and decode. Sure, they can receive the military signal, but they can't decode it, because they don't have the encryption keys. I don't think you have a workaround for that.
Yep, though the accuracy issues aren't what is changed with regards to civilian vs. military grade GPS units. The civilian grade units don't work above a certain altitude or velocity. Military grade units use a different signal with encryption, and can operate outside of these restricted envelopes, with a rough increase in accuracy (about 1m vs. 2m).
You need the crypto-keys to be able to access the military channel. Civilian GPS is good, but as has been stated above, does not work at speeds exceeding mach 1 or at altitudes above 60,000 feet.
Definitely relative to the service you were in. The US military, from what I've seen (almost nine years as a contractor on various systems), uses military grade gear with encryption. I don't understand all the signals, but I do know that they're not just a GPS chip from an iPhone.
It's more likely that there are some sort of cryto-keys required to access the other signal bases. Without those keys, you're SOL, even if you could reverse engineer the software.
You're missing the point...
The systems they're installing on these F-16s are simple systems that allow them to program a predetermined route, or perhaps fly via a data link. It does not allow them to drop ordinance or engage in dog fights with enemy aggressors.
Yes, the airframes are sunk costs, and would be otherwise retired, but the development costs of a weapons system to fly an unmanned fighter into hostile territory, deliver a payload, possibly fight an aggressor with guns and/or missiles, then return to base and land will be very high, much higher than the USAF is going to spend on this. Just the test regime on these aircraft would be several years long, and it would be probably 2017 before they dropped any ordinance, even on a dummy target.
Oh no, I get all that. All I'm saying is that the DoD isn't going to invest heavily in an autonomous/remotely-piloted system to run obsolete F-16s against enemy fighters or use them for ground attack. They've got Predator A and B models, and the C model will come online soon. They've got state of the art Falcons and Super Hornets for attack. They've got B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s for saturation bombing. They've got Eagles and Raptors for air superiority. They'll have the F-35 for all these roles (minus strategic bombing) active within the next five years.
Why spend all that money?
The F-16 is a great platform, and honestly, I think the USAF should continue buying them for decades to come. They're small, light, cheap, nimble, fast, and work very well at what they do. That said, I think their biggest draw is that they're cheap. Compared to the F-22 and F-35, they're chump change.
That list definitely has more on it than I expected. I went by the list that Wikipedia has on the main F-16 page, that lists the countries that have used the F-16 in actual combat. I probably should have dug a little deeper.
Looking at the list you provided, Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey are certainly the most likely to be volatile. Egypt certainly does operate a formidable force - 224 in various configurations. Pakistan operates 63. Turkey operates 240, plus another 30 that are likely to come online within the next few years. Also, Turkey's force is probably the most up-to-date, behind our own.
So, that said, with the exception of those three cases, which I agree, could cause trouble at any time, and operate decently sized fleets, most countries have a dozen of these, and many are older models. I look at a lot of this in the same way that I look at the US Navy selling out-of-date Adams-class Destroyers to the Greeks, or Kidd-class Destroyers to the RoC. The money is going to get spent, and the systems are going to be bought, either from the US, Russia, Germany, Spain, or whomever. When we're selling out-of-date equipment, we've got the upper hand. Not only do we have their money, but we know exactly how their systems work and how to defeat them. Heck, even when we sell the latest AEGIS derivatives to Spain, Norway, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, they don't get everything, and nothing that they get is as good or better than what the US Navy gets.
http://www.ga-asi.com/products/aircraft/pdf/Predator_C.pdf
I was slightly off - 6,500 pounds total; but the max gross takeoff weight for the Predator C is over 18,000 pounds. I'm not sure where you got your information, but you're wrong.
That said, just because a weapons platform doesn't currently support a weapons system, doesn't mean it won't. The Predator C is still in development, yet it already has the capability to deliver JDAMs in 500, 1,000, and 2,000 pound variants, SDBs, and Hellfires. Both the JSOW and the HARM are within the Avenger's load profile, so all it takes is some integration. If the DoD saw a need to incorporate that, they'd do it.
But, that won't always be true, especially in today's world, with look down shoot down radar systems, long range air-to-air missiles, and stealthy aircraft. An F-22 can see a bandit a hundred miles away, from a much greater altitude, fire a missile, and go about his business without the bandit ever knowing the F-22 was there.
In a straight dogfight, using guns, I'd definitely say that the veteran pilot has the battle well in hand, 99% of the time. Thrust vectoring on the F-22 might be the only instance where a greener pilot has the upper hand, but you don't get to be an F-22 pilot without having a LOT of stick time.
Agreed. I'm sure that a really good, veteran pilot could make the F-4 do things that a relative newbie in an F-22 couldn't handle, and could probably defeat them, under certain circumstances.
Like who?
The US has sold the F-16 to the following countries: Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Venezuela.
Of those, all are allies, with the exception of Venezuela, and you can't even say that they're openly hostile to the US, other than Chavez's failed BS tactics. The new president, Maduro, is far more amicable, despite leaning towards a Communist viewpoint. Further, Venezuela only has 9 operational F-16s, and they're A/B models.
The new Predator C model (Avenger) will be able to fly faster (460 MPH) and loiter for up to 18 hours while carrying a payload of 6,800 pounds. Pretty badass.
What is its use, then? Dropping ordinance on American citizens in the US? Dropping ordinance on terrorists in Afghanistan? Syria?
The Predator B (Reaper) and Predator C (Avenger) variants can drop a decent amount of ordinance (3,800 pounds and 6,800 pounds, respectively), loiter for much longer, and operate completely autonomously. The F-16 can only handle 9,000 pounds of ordinance, making this pretty much useless as a UCAV.
This is just a way to use up old equipment in a way that they've been doing for decades. If you really believe this is going to be some super secret way to kill brown people, you're just really dumb.
Go look at the Constitution and find the place where the federal government is charged with building roads, water treatment plants, and providing education. I'll wait.
Meanwhile, the part about general defense is clearly defined.
They've been doing this for decades with aircraft that have outlived their useful lives. Even though this is probably still more capable than the aircraft that half the aggressor nations we'd ever face would field, we've got better and badder systems to deliver heavy ordinance. 9,000 pounds of bombs simply isn't enough to justify the cost of turning these things into more badass Predator drones.
These will be used for both destructive and non-destructive testing and training, and there's zero chance they'll be used for ordinance delivery. An MQ-9 Reaper can deliver almost 4,000 pounds of ordinance, and this can carry a little more than double that. The upcoming Predator 'C' variant, the Avenger, will be able to carry almost 7,000 pounds of ordinance, is stealthy, is faster than the Predator or Reaper, and can loiter for up to 18 hours.
Don Draper certainly learned himself up, right quick.
The AIM-9X has air-to-ground capability, but to my knowledge, it's never been used in combat in an air-to-ground capacity.
From what I know, the ground-attack F-16s carry AGM-65 or AGM-158 missiles, in addition to a variety of guided and unguided bombs.
The crux of your comment is spot on, but whenever they do destructive tests like this, they always clear all vessels out of the target area.
Yep! The designation for the remotely piloted fighter aircraft is QF. I'm always sad to see some of our fighting birds go down, but I'm happy that these are really going to go to good use. The previous QF aircraft were much older aircraft, and even in the case of your QF-4, I don't believe them to be an adequate match, when it comes to mimicking the capabilities of fighter aircraft that we might see from an aggressor nation. These QF-16s, while older A/B models, will present a much more realistic target, as they're small, light, very nimble, and very fast. I'd rather see them go down in a blaze of glory than just in mothballs.
I don't disagree on either point, just stating that if they really wanted to get something here, it's conceivable that they could.
I agree with you on most points, however, the proposed 'AEGIS Ashore' program that will place SM-3 interceptors in Europe (Romania and Poland), and use the SPY-1D(V) radar that the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class Destroyers use, will likely put at least 100 interceptors on-site in VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells that are similar to those used by the Navy's DDGs and CGs. The DDGs can carry up to 96, while CGs can carry up to 128 (though that number is usually much smaller, due to inventory of SM-2, SM-6, ESSM, and Tomahawk missiles).
The good thing about the whole system is that it's modular, so if things really started to hit the fan, additional VLS modules could be mated, which would bring the capacity up significantly. That said, there's zero chance that, if a MAD-scenario ever played out, every incoming missile could be destroyed, even considering all the Burkes and Ticos that have BMD capability. There's just not enough SM-3s out there.