In a true air-to-air conflict, there will be radar signals bouncing all over the place, originating from everything from AWACS to SAM sites. There's plenty of emission, just from the defensive ground stations. A really good passive seeker is all you need for target acquisition, especially when your aircraft is equipped with fire-and-forget missiles that have their own active seeker, and require no intervention from the pilot of the firing aircraft.
Right...it's all about releasability. But again, it's not prudent that the USG allow for the release of some of the most important performance data on its top tier fighter to anyone, including its top tier allies.
The wars in Africa are old school, in the sense that it's a bunch of people fighting a bunch of people with somewhat decent weapons, on the ground. For the most part, they don't have fighter jets, they don't have close air support, they don't have forward air controllers, they don't have long range artillery, just a bunch of people with Kalashnikovs shooting each other. These are the types of wars that really haven't been fought by the developed world since about World War I.
Incorrect. The F-22 and F-35 have both active and passive seekers, and they're able to determine range, altitude, and bearing with just their passive seeker.
"So by the time America came in - ‘cause you were watching a U.S. cavalry film, ‘cause the U.S. cavalry always comes in right just towards the end of the film - ( sings charge melody ) "Ok, let's go America!" ( charge melody ) "I love the smell of Europe in the morning! So, how're you doing?", we were going, "Fucking ‘ell, where've you been?" "Ah, having breakfast. So, what's going on, hey?'" - Eddie Izzard (Dress to Kill)
As someone who once worked a project to implement Link 16 into a laptop on a HUMVEE, Link 16 is very easy to implement. If the Air Force wanted it, they'd have it. In all likelihood, the Air Force is unwilling to share the Raptor's targeting data, as they don't want the operational capabilities of the radar/IFF/command and decision systems to be revealed to anyone, including one of our closest allies. Such data can reveal the range of the radar, the resolution, and the characteristics of the radar when it comes to jamming and clutter. Obviously, all this data is classified as secret or above, and is almost certainly not for release to foreign individuals.
Remember, the F-22 is the only airborne weapons system that the US Government refuses to sell to other countries, because it's an apex predator. There's nothing out there that can rival it, and even the F-35, which is basically a follow-on of F-22 technology, is no match for it. Thus, we'll sell it to allied countries, but the F-22 stays US-only, in the case that if we're ever involved in an air war where we're back to old school air superiority, there are no air forces that can match ours.
That said, I remember reading an article a couple weeks ago, where a new pod is being installed in several US fighters that allow for interoperability with the F-22, over a form of encrypted radio. Basically, the pod allows the fighters to act as a sort of wireless access point, which interfaces with the F-22 and any other fighter with radios that don't talk the same language.
Yeah, I just checked Ram Trucks' website, and you can get a manual. Also, they're going to start offering a small diesel in their 1500, soon. Wise move, though Ford and GM haven't said they're going to follow suit. Idiots.
Right, and there are things that they're just plain biased against. Clarkson HATES most American vehicles, even if they're faster, look better, drive better, cost less, and have more features than their European brethren.
How does a dead battery lock the brakes on a normal, gasoline operated vehicle, other than one with an electric parking brake (in which case, a car with a dead battery can always be jump started)?
And it does matter. Tesla wants these cars to replace normal gas operated cars, yet every screen, dial, and component in the car saps power. If the real world range is insufficient to make the vehicle worthwhile for longer distance trips, why would someone in the US buy one, other than 'green cred'?
Sounds like a dumb design, to use a completely separate battery system for the parking brake, rather than just have a step-down transformer that runs off the existing battery voltage powering it.
Have you ever tried to use a vehicle dolly to move a car onto a flatbed truck? I have. The casters are not big enough to adequately make it onto the flatbed without slipping.
Right, and that's fine. He KNEW it was going to run out of charge. Did he know that the parking brake would be locked, preventing him from getting the vehicle to a charger, once it was dead?
And of course the writer had an agenda. So does Elon Musk. So does every blogger, writer, Slashdot commenter, and editor alive.
Agreed. Trying to wring every last joule of electricity out of the battery isn't a bad thing, and it's useful to determine what, if any, safety there is in the 'tank' of the Model S. It's basically the same thing as validating that when your car's trip computer says that you've got 50 miles of gas left, you actually HAVE 50 miles of gas left.
Since when has Jalopnik been known to be as terrible a news source as their corporate overlords? They're the only blog in that network that is credible in any way, shape, or form. Why? Because they're gearheads that know cars, and in the years that I've been reading, I haven't noticed sensationalism as a normal tool of theirs. That said, every news source should always be thought of as 'in-question' because all writers have a personal agenda, all editors have a personal agenda, and all companies have a corporate agenda. So, please forgive me if your pithy slight against a pretty damn good auto blog is considered meaningless.
Unless they're being paid (the tow truck company, that is), which I covered in my original post. I mean, it's insane for anyone to believe that Musk is above manipulating a graph that he's released to make his baby seem like its failure was the fault of someone else. How many battery failures were there with the roadster?
And apparently, neither is the New York Times, so now who do we trust?
The car coasted down the off-ramp, then the driver applied the electric parking brake, and the car ran out of charge. How will the electric parking brake, which was holding the vehicle in place, be released, if there's no mechanical linkage that can be operated manually?
Thanks, and I appreciate it, but anything that doesn't explicitly support Elon Musk is going to be downranked around here.
If little else, even if the NYT author was deliberate in his attempts to kill the battery life on the car, he also uncovered a failure mode, whereby the parking brake is unusable. At least with an electric parking brake on a gas-operated vehicle, if the battery dies, you can jumpstart the car. With this, you have to have a mobile charger, or tire dollies.
They apparently fudged a test of the vehicle to make it seem like it went from having a decent charge to being completely dead within a very short timeframe. I think it was Clarkson driving, and he gave a very bad review of the car.
Jalopnik called the tow truck company, and they confirmed that not only was the car out of charge, and not only did they need to leave the car on the charger for an extended time because it was so low on charge, but that they were on the phone with a Tesla employee in California, as the electric parking brake was locked, and wouldn't allow the vehicle to move onto the flatbed.
Now, this very well could be the NYT reporting being in bed with the tow truck company, metaphorically speaking, but I think there's more to this than Musk wants to let on.
Your assumptions belie your assertions. Just because Iran hasn't conducted a public test, doesn't mean they don't have one. Further, it IS hard to develop a nuclear bomb. The physics package, fusing, as well as obtaining the necessary fissile material, is difficult to design and manufacture. Very difficult. The US was able to do so, because they were thrown a tremendous budget, no outside interference, and had some of the top minds that mankind has ever known working on the project. Simply putting fissile material into a bomb casing and detonating high explosives near it is not a nuclear weapon, it's a "dirty" bomb that will spread radioactive particles over a relatively localized area. Getting the detonation sequence correct, using the proper configuration of explosives, manufacturing the charge that will set off the reaction - that's difficult.
Also, Iran has received a tremendous amount of materiel and human support from Russia throughout the years, as has China, India, Pakistan, and pretty much every other ass backwards country in the mid-east or Asia. To think that they've never transferred any nuclear material, know-how, or designs to Iran isn't just naive, it's downright foolish.
Ok, and assuming that in a couple years, they're able to demonstrate a technology with an additional gain of 400%, that would be 40 kt. After another couple years, perhaps 160 kt.
Nothing that I said spun facts or rephrased them. Methinks you're just trolling for fun.
The issue isn't about whether they can completely disable a country, rather, it's about them being able to impact a country in a profound enough way to change their way of life, or cause enough harm to make them fear you. I assume, since you're on Slashdot, that you've seen Iron Man 2, specifically, the line that MIckey Rourke delivers to RDJ - "If you can make God bleed, people will stop believing in Him."
That's really what they're after, as well as all other terrorist countries and organizations. Look at the impact that the 9/11 attacks had, even though only about 3,000 people (roughly 0.00000953% of the US population). It spawned two wars, drone campaigns, the Patriot Act, a global recession, a housing crisis, high unemployment in the US, etc, etc, etc, and this is coming from someone who supported both wars (and still supports the invasion of Iraq).
If I recall correctly, the reason they gave for the malfunction was tampering or destruction by westerners. That's not an admission of culpability, that's passing the blame to create a people more ingrained to hate westerners.
All I know is that after the Soviet Union fell, there were a lot of scientists and engineers looking for work. It's not inconceivable that a significant number of these people defected to any number of hostile states, bringing their knowledge of weapons, delivery systems, etc.
Now, granted, North Korea is kinda like the kid down the street that tries hard, postures, but never really developed any muscles, but regardless, they've got some amount of technology that could be transferred to a terrorist network with relative ease. Hell, they'd probably sell it just so that any discovery of it could be traced back to them so they're injected into the international discussion, again.
Slashdot Mirror
In a true air-to-air conflict, there will be radar signals bouncing all over the place, originating from everything from AWACS to SAM sites. There's plenty of emission, just from the defensive ground stations. A really good passive seeker is all you need for target acquisition, especially when your aircraft is equipped with fire-and-forget missiles that have their own active seeker, and require no intervention from the pilot of the firing aircraft.
Right...it's all about releasability. But again, it's not prudent that the USG allow for the release of some of the most important performance data on its top tier fighter to anyone, including its top tier allies.
The wars in Africa are old school, in the sense that it's a bunch of people fighting a bunch of people with somewhat decent weapons, on the ground. For the most part, they don't have fighter jets, they don't have close air support, they don't have forward air controllers, they don't have long range artillery, just a bunch of people with Kalashnikovs shooting each other. These are the types of wars that really haven't been fought by the developed world since about World War I.
Incorrect. The F-22 and F-35 have both active and passive seekers, and they're able to determine range, altitude, and bearing with just their passive seeker.
"So by the time America came in - ‘cause you were watching a U.S. cavalry film, ‘cause the U.S. cavalry always comes in right just towards the end of the film - ( sings charge melody ) "Ok, let's go America!" ( charge melody ) "I love the smell of Europe in the morning! So, how're you doing?", we were going, "Fucking ‘ell, where've you been?" "Ah, having breakfast. So, what's going on, hey?'" - Eddie Izzard (Dress to Kill)
As someone who once worked a project to implement Link 16 into a laptop on a HUMVEE, Link 16 is very easy to implement. If the Air Force wanted it, they'd have it. In all likelihood, the Air Force is unwilling to share the Raptor's targeting data, as they don't want the operational capabilities of the radar/IFF/command and decision systems to be revealed to anyone, including one of our closest allies. Such data can reveal the range of the radar, the resolution, and the characteristics of the radar when it comes to jamming and clutter. Obviously, all this data is classified as secret or above, and is almost certainly not for release to foreign individuals.
Remember, the F-22 is the only airborne weapons system that the US Government refuses to sell to other countries, because it's an apex predator. There's nothing out there that can rival it, and even the F-35, which is basically a follow-on of F-22 technology, is no match for it. Thus, we'll sell it to allied countries, but the F-22 stays US-only, in the case that if we're ever involved in an air war where we're back to old school air superiority, there are no air forces that can match ours.
That said, I remember reading an article a couple weeks ago, where a new pod is being installed in several US fighters that allow for interoperability with the F-22, over a form of encrypted radio. Basically, the pod allows the fighters to act as a sort of wireless access point, which interfaces with the F-22 and any other fighter with radios that don't talk the same language.
Yeah, I just checked Ram Trucks' website, and you can get a manual. Also, they're going to start offering a small diesel in their 1500, soon. Wise move, though Ford and GM haven't said they're going to follow suit. Idiots.
Right, and there are things that they're just plain biased against. Clarkson HATES most American vehicles, even if they're faster, look better, drive better, cost less, and have more features than their European brethren.
How does a dead battery lock the brakes on a normal, gasoline operated vehicle, other than one with an electric parking brake (in which case, a car with a dead battery can always be jump started)?
And it does matter. Tesla wants these cars to replace normal gas operated cars, yet every screen, dial, and component in the car saps power. If the real world range is insufficient to make the vehicle worthwhile for longer distance trips, why would someone in the US buy one, other than 'green cred'?
Sounds like a dumb design, to use a completely separate battery system for the parking brake, rather than just have a step-down transformer that runs off the existing battery voltage powering it.
Have you ever tried to use a vehicle dolly to move a car onto a flatbed truck? I have. The casters are not big enough to adequately make it onto the flatbed without slipping.
Right, and that's fine. He KNEW it was going to run out of charge. Did he know that the parking brake would be locked, preventing him from getting the vehicle to a charger, once it was dead?
And of course the writer had an agenda. So does Elon Musk. So does every blogger, writer, Slashdot commenter, and editor alive.
Agreed. Trying to wring every last joule of electricity out of the battery isn't a bad thing, and it's useful to determine what, if any, safety there is in the 'tank' of the Model S. It's basically the same thing as validating that when your car's trip computer says that you've got 50 miles of gas left, you actually HAVE 50 miles of gas left.
Since when has Jalopnik been known to be as terrible a news source as their corporate overlords? They're the only blog in that network that is credible in any way, shape, or form. Why? Because they're gearheads that know cars, and in the years that I've been reading, I haven't noticed sensationalism as a normal tool of theirs. That said, every news source should always be thought of as 'in-question' because all writers have a personal agenda, all editors have a personal agenda, and all companies have a corporate agenda. So, please forgive me if your pithy slight against a pretty damn good auto blog is considered meaningless.
Unless they're being paid (the tow truck company, that is), which I covered in my original post. I mean, it's insane for anyone to believe that Musk is above manipulating a graph that he's released to make his baby seem like its failure was the fault of someone else. How many battery failures were there with the roadster?
And apparently, neither is the New York Times, so now who do we trust?
The car coasted down the off-ramp, then the driver applied the electric parking brake, and the car ran out of charge. How will the electric parking brake, which was holding the vehicle in place, be released, if there's no mechanical linkage that can be operated manually?
Thanks, and I appreciate it, but anything that doesn't explicitly support Elon Musk is going to be downranked around here.
If little else, even if the NYT author was deliberate in his attempts to kill the battery life on the car, he also uncovered a failure mode, whereby the parking brake is unusable. At least with an electric parking brake on a gas-operated vehicle, if the battery dies, you can jumpstart the car. With this, you have to have a mobile charger, or tire dollies.
They apparently fudged a test of the vehicle to make it seem like it went from having a decent charge to being completely dead within a very short timeframe. I think it was Clarkson driving, and he gave a very bad review of the car.
Jalopnik called the tow truck company, and they confirmed that not only was the car out of charge, and not only did they need to leave the car on the charger for an extended time because it was so low on charge, but that they were on the phone with a Tesla employee in California, as the electric parking brake was locked, and wouldn't allow the vehicle to move onto the flatbed.
http://jalopnik.com/towing-company-the-nyt-tesla-model-s-was-dead-when-it-196100064
Now, this very well could be the NYT reporting being in bed with the tow truck company, metaphorically speaking, but I think there's more to this than Musk wants to let on.
Your assumptions belie your assertions. Just because Iran hasn't conducted a public test, doesn't mean they don't have one. Further, it IS hard to develop a nuclear bomb. The physics package, fusing, as well as obtaining the necessary fissile material, is difficult to design and manufacture. Very difficult. The US was able to do so, because they were thrown a tremendous budget, no outside interference, and had some of the top minds that mankind has ever known working on the project. Simply putting fissile material into a bomb casing and detonating high explosives near it is not a nuclear weapon, it's a "dirty" bomb that will spread radioactive particles over a relatively localized area. Getting the detonation sequence correct, using the proper configuration of explosives, manufacturing the charge that will set off the reaction - that's difficult.
Also, Iran has received a tremendous amount of materiel and human support from Russia throughout the years, as has China, India, Pakistan, and pretty much every other ass backwards country in the mid-east or Asia. To think that they've never transferred any nuclear material, know-how, or designs to Iran isn't just naive, it's downright foolish.
Ok, and assuming that in a couple years, they're able to demonstrate a technology with an additional gain of 400%, that would be 40 kt. After another couple years, perhaps 160 kt.
Nothing that I said spun facts or rephrased them. Methinks you're just trolling for fun.
The issue isn't about whether they can completely disable a country, rather, it's about them being able to impact a country in a profound enough way to change their way of life, or cause enough harm to make them fear you. I assume, since you're on Slashdot, that you've seen Iron Man 2, specifically, the line that MIckey Rourke delivers to RDJ - "If you can make God bleed, people will stop believing in Him."
That's really what they're after, as well as all other terrorist countries and organizations. Look at the impact that the 9/11 attacks had, even though only about 3,000 people (roughly 0.00000953% of the US population). It spawned two wars, drone campaigns, the Patriot Act, a global recession, a housing crisis, high unemployment in the US, etc, etc, etc, and this is coming from someone who supported both wars (and still supports the invasion of Iraq).
If I recall correctly, the reason they gave for the malfunction was tampering or destruction by westerners. That's not an admission of culpability, that's passing the blame to create a people more ingrained to hate westerners.
As opposed to the humanitarian disaster that is most of mainland China???
All I know is that after the Soviet Union fell, there were a lot of scientists and engineers looking for work. It's not inconceivable that a significant number of these people defected to any number of hostile states, bringing their knowledge of weapons, delivery systems, etc.
Now, granted, North Korea is kinda like the kid down the street that tries hard, postures, but never really developed any muscles, but regardless, they've got some amount of technology that could be transferred to a terrorist network with relative ease. Hell, they'd probably sell it just so that any discovery of it could be traced back to them so they're injected into the international discussion, again.