...Moller hasn't been able to finalize and market their vaporware car. I'd hate to see most of the drivers around, including you, at the controls of one.
That's why trucks over the last 20 years or so have that big airfoil over the cab, in front of the trailer. But also, an aerodynamic shape is the antithesis of efficient storage and transport of boxes. Is the aerodynamic advantage at 60mph enough to offset the lessened cargo capacity? Doubtful, otherwise they would have done it.
The U.S. imposed sanctions in 1989 for reasons that had nothing to do with Kuwait. After '91 we convinced the UN to go along because of the invasion of Kuwait.
1989? really... Got any further info on that? Because everything I've read points to UNSCR 661, August 6, 1990 as the first.
I never said that the lasers targetted the missles. All I said was that the plane was attacked, and the planes carried the defense system.
The referring to the laser system.
This is what you said: Except that laser point defense is already used in aircraft. Civilian ones too.
To protect a plane, you don't need to destroy the missle. It just has to miss. When the missle is detected, a relatively low power laser can disable the seeker head on an IR missle.
Remember the two El Al jets that were fired upon in Kenya? They were both equipped with this system. There is consideration that this system might be installed in American jets. It's automatic, and the pilot doesn't need to know if it's decoyed missles. Nothing he can do anyway.
Now to me, that statement says "The El Al jets that were fired upon in Kenya were equipped with a laser point defense system." Absent mention of any other stated defense system (Flight Guard), one would assume you're referring to the stated laser defense system as being the system used.
but when you talk to me, you're getting the most up to date information available in the world
I'll be sure to remember that the next time I need any more incorrect rumors.
And all that says it that "It is widely believed that El Al airliners are equipped with missile defense systems,"
However, the Flight Guard defense system being installed by El Al is not a laser, but rather a radar detection unit and an automated flare dispenser. Effective against MANPAD IR guided SAM's. Stingers and Strelas, for instance.
There is no civilian mounted laser defense system. yet.
The missiles fired in Kenya missed, just because they missed, not because they were targeted by a laser.
The tanker variant of the -135 series, the KC-135A was in service starting in Jan '57, continuing to the present.
The particular NKC-135A (S/N 55-3123) used for the laser test bed was in operation for 11 years, ending in 1988. So that gives an initial service year of 1977. Well after the Vietnam War.
You're not thinking large enough. Who knows what the next 20 years or so will bring. If Al-Quaeda had an air force on the level of, say, Pakistan....you can bet they would have used some of it.
Or if China decides to make a play for Taiwan...Something like this would be VERY useful. Or if Pakistan and India up the level of grumbling. One side launches a missile...this laser could take it out before the situation degenerates even more.
Boys and their toys, yes. But who knows...it may ward off a major esclation somewhere. Terrorism is the current and future style of warfare for the have-nots. But there are also a lot of haves out there.
We can combat this two ways: kill everyone who doesn't like America, or make America the good guy again by improving the lives of people. And not killing them in the process.
In the case of Kim Jong Il, we probably can't do #2. He is not ready to accept anyone's assistance as far as improving the lives of his people.
Possibly. But you have to factor in a few new variables
Weight. A good mirror coating will increase the weight of the missile, reducing the range and/or payload. Coverage. Do we cover the whole missile, warhead and motors as well? What effects will that have on operations? Flexibility. A ballistic missile body, being large and relatively lightweight, flexes as it flies. The coating would have to 'give' with the skin, or otherwise flake off. Reflectivity. Can a mirror coating be reflective enough, given the above restrictions, to actually do anything?
I'm sure there are a host of other considerations as well.
Harder than a worldwide ATM network? I don't see it.
A company that would use a poorly designed MSAccess db as the base for an election system speaks to incompetence all the way up the chain. Nothing wrong with Access, but please...not for an election system!
Their ATM network handles billions of dollars in realtime. Why isn't their election software as rigorous?
Transponders make you a target. Anything radiating on a battlefield is saying "Here I am, come shoot me!" Then there is the question of spoofing. If a tank is squawking "Friend", can you be really sure it's a friendly? Do you want to risk your life on it?
Visually, a friendly T-80 tank looks exactly like an enemy T-80. The main difference is which way the gun is pointed. Maybe you can change the paint (inverted V, like in GulfWarI), but that doesn't work at night. Or if it's dusty/sandy/raining.
This is (and has always been) a very thorny question, and one that won't be solved soon.
Because we keep back-up copies of data for the purposes of recovery from errors or system failure, residual copies of email may remain on our systems for some time, even after you have deleted messages from your mailbox or after the termination of your account.
How is this any different from what all other email providers do? As they make backups, generally it gets stored to tape. Later on, you stroll through and delete it. It still exists on the tape.
When you are logged into your Gmail account, Google will display targeted ads and other relevant information based on the content of the email displayed.
How is this different from what Yahoo does? Targeted ads based on search entries.
Oh wait...Google is honest enough to tell us up front.
At least under the European style of government, the military does not take action (ie., start killing) until civilian governments order them to do so.
Umm....that's pretty much how it happens in the US, too. You think the US Army, Navy & Air Force just got up one day and decided to invade?
There were several other options, which you might want to think about:
C) Invade Iraq and not kill so many civilians by being much more careful
Invade and 'be more careful'? Do you have any idea how 'careful' we have been in comparison to other armed conflicts? Yes, mistakes happen. But far, far less than in previous wars. Here's a combat dilemna for you:
You're flying along, and your threat radar picks up a signal from the ground. You're being targeted with a SAM radar. You assess the area, and discover it's in what appears to be a residential area. Do you: A) Shoot back and maybe kill some civilians that may or may not be in the area, or B) Don't shoot back because civilians might get killed.
If you don't take out that SAM site, you may get shot down, or the transport plane bringing in food supplies an hour later might get shot down. What do you do?
D) Oust Saddam without invading Iraq (we do it all the time in other countries)
How, exactly? Assassination? It's not like they had a valid election process that could be influenced.
E) Lift Sanctions. Before we decided to impose sanctions after the Kuwait invasion, Iraq was one of the more prosperous nations. People were fed.
How quickly we forget why those sanctions were put into place. To prevent Saddam from using his considerable oil wealth to buy and develop new weapons. The sanctions could have been removed at any time, had he complied. The choice was all his.
OBTW, it was UN sanctions, not US.
F) Find a relatively peacable solution to ousting the current regime. They do exist.
For reference, see 1989: Germany, Poland, Soviet Union, Romania, Czechoslovakia and 2002 (?): Serbia.
Completely different situations. The fall of Communism in the former Warsaw Pact countries came about only after 40+ years of Cold War, and they fell apart due to internal pressures and the inevitable failings of Communism. That wasn't happening anytime soon in Iraq.
Take off & landing are particulary stressful times, on the aircrew as well as the aircraft.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have one of the engines being fed erroneous data because the RF coming out of your iPod was interacting with the RF coming out of the laptop in the seat in front of you, and the GameBoy in the seat next to you, with the resulting harmonics affecting the air data signals being sent to the engine management computer.
Losing engine power on takeoff is not the way to a long, fruitful life.
Slashdot Mirror
...Moller hasn't been able to finalize and market their vaporware car. I'd hate to see most of the drivers around, including you, at the controls of one.
That's why trucks over the last 20 years or so have that big airfoil over the cab, in front of the trailer.
But also, an aerodynamic shape is the antithesis of efficient storage and transport of boxes. Is the aerodynamic advantage at 60mph enough to offset the lessened cargo capacity? Doubtful, otherwise they would have done it.
But only after using the afterburner to get there.
The reheats are turned back on, by the piano switches behind the thrust leavers, for around 10 minutes once the aircraft is clear of land, to push the aircraft through Mach1 and on to Mach1.7 where they are no longer required.
The F-22 can exceed M1 withuot any afterburner use at all.
Riiiight...
Top right - F-15
Center - Modified F-5
Bottom left - Standard F-5, painted in TigerShark livery.
The F-20 is just slightly different frm the F-5, as evidenced by the extra bulk around the tail root.
This particular F-15B from NASA has a different nose. More pointed than a line model. That is why you were confused.
The only way for that to happen is if we all leave.
Mars, anyone?
The U.S. imposed sanctions in 1989 for reasons that had nothing to do with Kuwait. After '91 we convinced the UN to go along because of the invasion of Kuwait.
1989? really...
Got any further info on that? Because everything I've read points to UNSCR 661, August 6, 1990 as the first.
Seriously though, there's no such thing as "zero flight time". Light moves fast, but it does take time to get there
For all practical purposes, 300 mile range in 0.0016 seconds is close enough to zero as to not make a difference...:)
I never said that the lasers targetted the missles. All I said was that the plane was attacked, and the planes carried the defense system.
The referring to the laser system.
This is what you said:
Except that laser point defense is already used in aircraft. Civilian ones too.
To protect a plane, you don't need to destroy the missle. It just has to miss. When the missle is detected, a relatively low power laser can disable the seeker head on an IR missle.
Remember the two El Al jets that were fired upon in Kenya? They were both equipped with this system. There is consideration that this system might be installed in American jets. It's automatic, and the pilot doesn't need to know if it's decoyed missles. Nothing he can do anyway.
Now to me, that statement says "The El Al jets that were fired upon in Kenya were equipped with a laser point defense system." Absent mention of any other stated defense system (Flight Guard), one would assume you're referring to the stated laser defense system as being the system used.
but when you talk to me, you're getting the most up to date information available in the world
I'll be sure to remember that the next time I need any more incorrect rumors.
And all that says it that "It is widely believed that El Al airliners are equipped with missile defense systems,"
However, the Flight Guard defense system being installed by El Al is not a laser, but rather a radar detection unit and an automated flare dispenser. Effective against MANPAD IR guided SAM's. Stingers and Strelas, for instance.
There is no civilian mounted laser defense system. yet. The missiles fired in Kenya missed, just because they missed, not because they were targeted by a laser.
You're reading it wrong.
The tanker variant of the -135 series, the KC-135A was in service starting in Jan '57, continuing to the present.
The particular NKC-135A (S/N 55-3123) used for the laser test bed was in operation for 11 years, ending in 1988. So that gives an initial service year of 1977. Well after the Vietnam War.
You're not thinking large enough. Who knows what the next 20 years or so will bring. If Al-Quaeda had an air force on the level of, say, Pakistan....you can bet they would have used some of it.
Or if China decides to make a play for Taiwan...Something like this would be VERY useful.
Or if Pakistan and India up the level of grumbling. One side launches a missile...this laser could take it out before the situation degenerates even more.
Boys and their toys, yes. But who knows...it may ward off a major esclation somewhere. Terrorism is the current and future style of warfare for the have-nots. But there are also a lot of haves out there.
It's very rare today to hear of a major company throwing money at a research project since the '80s.
Of COURSE it's rare for an oil company to fund any research into alternative energy sources.
And British tanks sometimes attack other British tanks. A battlefield is a very hectic, confusing place. 'Friendly fire' happens sometimes.
We can combat this two ways: kill everyone who doesn't like America, or make America the good guy again by improving the lives of people. And not killing them in the process.
In the case of Kim Jong Il, we probably can't do #2. He is not ready to accept anyone's assistance as far as improving the lives of his people.
You can maybe dodge a missile. You can't dodge a zero flight time laser.
Possibly. But you have to factor in a few new variables
Weight. A good mirror coating will increase the weight of the missile, reducing the range and/or payload.
Coverage. Do we cover the whole missile, warhead and motors as well? What effects will that have on operations?
Flexibility. A ballistic missile body, being large and relatively lightweight, flexes as it flies. The coating would have to 'give' with the skin, or otherwise flake off.
Reflectivity. Can a mirror coating be reflective enough, given the above restrictions, to actually do anything?
I'm sure there are a host of other considerations as well.
Harder than a worldwide ATM network? I don't see it.
A company that would use a poorly designed MSAccess db as the base for an election system speaks to incompetence all the way up the chain. Nothing wrong with Access, but please...not for an election system!
Their ATM network handles billions of dollars in realtime. Why isn't their election software as rigorous?
Transponders make you a target. Anything radiating on a battlefield is saying "Here I am, come shoot me!"
Then there is the question of spoofing. If a tank is squawking "Friend", can you be really sure it's a friendly? Do you want to risk your life on it?
Visually, a friendly T-80 tank looks exactly like an enemy T-80. The main difference is which way the gun is pointed.
Maybe you can change the paint (inverted V, like in GulfWarI), but that doesn't work at night. Or if it's dusty/sandy/raining.
This is (and has always been) a very thorny question, and one that won't be solved soon.
Quite often, that equipment is the same on both sides, and/or your 'enemy' has the same equipment you do.
Take a conflict between Pakistan and India. Let's hypothesize that Pak is the agressor, and we side with India.
Pakistan has US F-16's, India has Russian MiG-29's. Both sides have French Mirages.
All sides would have to be very, very careful with target identification.
Because we keep back-up copies of data for the purposes of recovery from errors or system failure, residual copies of email may remain on our systems for some time, even after you have deleted messages from your mailbox or after the termination of your account.
How is this any different from what all other email providers do? As they make backups, generally it gets stored to tape. Later on, you stroll through and delete it. It still exists on the tape.
When you are logged into your Gmail account, Google will display targeted ads and other relevant information based on the content of the email displayed.
How is this different from what Yahoo does? Targeted ads based on search entries.
Oh wait...Google is honest enough to tell us up front.
Hmmmm... maybe I should consider building a Line In for my car cassette deck, so I can hook my portable MP3 player directly into it.
I just use an FM transmitter from the CD/mp3 player to the radio. Not great quality, but it works, especially in a noisy pickup truck.
I disagree with what he said, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it.
At least under the European style of government, the military does not take action (ie., start killing) until civilian governments order them to do so.
Umm....that's pretty much how it happens in the US, too. You think the US Army, Navy & Air Force just got up one day and decided to invade?
There were several other options, which you might want to think about:
C) Invade Iraq and not kill so many civilians by being much more careful
Invade and 'be more careful'? Do you have any idea how 'careful' we have been in comparison to other armed conflicts? Yes, mistakes happen. But far, far less than in previous wars.
Here's a combat dilemna for you:
You're flying along, and your threat radar picks up a signal from the ground. You're being targeted with a SAM radar. You assess the area, and discover it's in what appears to be a residential area.
Do you:
A) Shoot back and maybe kill some civilians that may or may not be in the area, or
B) Don't shoot back because civilians might get killed.
If you don't take out that SAM site, you may get shot down, or the transport plane bringing in food supplies an hour later might get shot down.
What do you do?
D) Oust Saddam without invading Iraq (we do it all the time in other countries)
How, exactly? Assassination? It's not like they had a valid election process that could be influenced.
E) Lift Sanctions. Before we decided to impose sanctions after the Kuwait invasion, Iraq was one of the more prosperous nations. People were fed.
How quickly we forget why those sanctions were put into place. To prevent Saddam from using his considerable oil wealth to buy and develop new weapons. The sanctions could have been removed at any time, had he complied. The choice was all his.
OBTW, it was UN sanctions, not US.
F) Find a relatively peacable solution to ousting the current regime. They do exist. For reference, see 1989: Germany, Poland, Soviet Union, Romania, Czechoslovakia and 2002 (?): Serbia.
Completely different situations. The fall of Communism in the former Warsaw Pact countries came about only after 40+ years of Cold War, and they fell apart due to internal pressures and the inevitable failings of Communism. That wasn't happening anytime soon in Iraq.
Take off & landing are particulary stressful times, on the aircrew as well as the aircraft.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have one of the engines being fed erroneous data because the RF coming out of your iPod was interacting with the RF coming out of the laptop in the seat in front of you, and the GameBoy in the seat next to you, with the resulting harmonics affecting the air data signals being sent to the engine management computer.
Losing engine power on takeoff is not the way to a long, fruitful life.