Why do you need a human in the cockpit? The F-35 helmet has a VR display so the pilot can see behind him. Why not in front? And once you've got that, put him in the carrier a couple hundred miles away instead of in the cockpit.
If he needs to pee or get a sandwich he can even hand over to a fresh pilot instead of going in his diaper and popping a speed tablet.
It's not just gun kills. Missiles work a lot better when you fire one up the guy's tailpipe from close range than when you lob one over the horizon. That becomes even more true when the other guy has stealthy or semi-stealthy planes too. And even more so when you're not supposed to be shooting down non-combatant flights so you have to identify your targets before you shoot.
You could possibly argue that if the US were to face something like the USSR, long range missiles would would be enough. When you're fighting someone little, dogfights are even more important. You'll be fighting in airspace that potentially has neutrals, allied friendlies and even enemy targets you don't want to shoot down (like airliners or medical flights) and you might be cruising around doing security or close air support, like in Bosnia. Those situations are where modern dogfights happen.
You can mess with the automated drones using GPS jamming, but a fighter/attack-replacement would have a real pilot connected via satellite. You might be able to jam that, but it would be hard, and you'd have to be above the drone, which makes you a pretty good target.
The A10 is a beautiful solution to a forty year old problem. Unfortunately, the Russians figured out that since the Americans built a flying tank killer, they'd have to start putting decent armour on top of their tanks. Also, someone went and invented these things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There are lots of other reasons to get rid of the pilot too, and many of them are even older than the ability of an airframe to survive higher Gs than the pilot.
There was a proposal in the (sixties?) to build an interceptor where the pilot had only a periscope, because the requirement for a canopy was interfering with the aerodynamics of prototype supersonic aircraft. Pilots also limit the endurance of aircraft. You can do a halfway-around-the-world bombing run with forty year old planes, but it's unpleasant for the flight crews. You could put fighters in theatre the same way, but the pilot would go insane.
If Hitler had not started a war but instead concentrated on German innovation, they would have had a much easier time conquering the world twenty years later. Of course, by that time, they wouldn't need to. Kind of like what the US did. Economic invasion.
Stealth was a great idea. It was conceived to provide first strike capability to nuclear bombers in the face of comprehensive air defence networks. That niche was short term, until ballistic missiles took over, the stealth tech didn't have to face a drawn out war where the enemy could innovate (he got one look at the bombers on radar, then boom) and it didn't have to be perfect, it just had to increase the number of planes that could get through.
It's not a horrible idea for an interceptor like the F-22, or a specialized first strike attack jet like the F117. Making serious compromises for stealth in your workhorse fighter? That doesn't seem so smart.
"Are you saying that these forces are hostile to local population. Are they conquering troop? That is a defining characteristic of imperial."
No it's not. Locals often like living under an empire, although there's usually some inevitable friction. Look at eighteenth century Canada, nineteenth century Russia, or modern Gibraltar, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
On a geologic time scale we're irrelevant. We've added a few hundred parts per billion of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. If you want to see some short sighted biology create a moderately interesting geological incident, look up "great oxygenation event."
The hyperspace in Star Wars is more like the hyperspace in Niven's Known Space or a Star Trek warp drive than like a jump drive. You don't take a shortcut, rather, you can travel faster than c in hyperspace. That type of hyperdrive has limitations around masses in most science fiction.
Presumably Han Solo needs to at least know something about the limitations of a hyperdrive if he's going to pilot a hyperdrive ship. Since he's always fixing it, he probably knows something about the principles behind it as well.
Why? If you used the antimatter and matter in a reactor to generate energy for a super laser, the laser beam would transport the energy to the planet. The energy transfer from the laser to the planet is much less problematic than from a ball of antimatter. If you tossed an antimatter asteroid at Earth it might not even hit the surface before it bounced off.
Historically, yes. Since it's never used any other way now, the Oxford dictionary has apparently determined your definition is obsolete and the one I gave is correct:
If you're going to make fun of someone's writing you should probably check a dictionary first. Bated means "in great suspense; very anxiously or excitedly" and is used correctly in the summary. You're thinking of "baited."
In that case, I disagree. If anything, recognizing growing obesity as an epidemic turns the reaction from "hey, there's a lardass who obviously doesn't take care of himself" to "hey, lots of us are turning into lardasses, maybe we should see if there's something else going on."
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Obesity in most western societies, especially those in North America meets all the criteria for an epidemic; it's also a major public health disaster that's only getting worse.
Societies have certainly always exerted pressure on their members. That's really what makes them societies. So far it's been a wildly successful strategy. In regards to obesity, it goes back a lot further than decades. Gluttony is one of the capital sins.
Good point. Revenue may well be affected by those things though. If you're a cab company that has to maintain it's own fleet and pay out benefits, you having to balance your desire to always have a car handy when a customer wants a ride with the practicalities of actually having to have and maintain those vehicles. Uber doesn't have to do that.
Aside from the Slashdot comments, where everyone gets treated badly, is anyone in this story treating overweight people like shit? Treating people badly isn't good, but some subtle societal pressure to take the edge of the obesity epidemic isn't a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you need a human in the cockpit? The F-35 helmet has a VR display so the pilot can see behind him. Why not in front? And once you've got that, put him in the carrier a couple hundred miles away instead of in the cockpit.
If he needs to pee or get a sandwich he can even hand over to a fresh pilot instead of going in his diaper and popping a speed tablet.
Program the drones that if they get jammed, fly towards and crash into whatever is jamming them.
It's not just gun kills. Missiles work a lot better when you fire one up the guy's tailpipe from close range than when you lob one over the horizon. That becomes even more true when the other guy has stealthy or semi-stealthy planes too. And even more so when you're not supposed to be shooting down non-combatant flights so you have to identify your targets before you shoot.
Sucks to be the poor pilot who has to fly that thing all the way across the pacific and back, plus conduct combat operations in the middle.
The bringing F-18s on a carrier is a legitimate threat.
Your point is wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
You could possibly argue that if the US were to face something like the USSR, long range missiles would would be enough. When you're fighting someone little, dogfights are even more important. You'll be fighting in airspace that potentially has neutrals, allied friendlies and even enemy targets you don't want to shoot down (like airliners or medical flights) and you might be cruising around doing security or close air support, like in Bosnia. Those situations are where modern dogfights happen.
You can mess with the automated drones using GPS jamming, but a fighter/attack-replacement would have a real pilot connected via satellite. You might be able to jam that, but it would be hard, and you'd have to be above the drone, which makes you a pretty good target.
The A10 is a beautiful solution to a forty year old problem. Unfortunately, the Russians figured out that since the Americans built a flying tank killer, they'd have to start putting decent armour on top of their tanks. Also, someone went and invented these things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There are lots of other reasons to get rid of the pilot too, and many of them are even older than the ability of an airframe to survive higher Gs than the pilot.
There was a proposal in the (sixties?) to build an interceptor where the pilot had only a periscope, because the requirement for a canopy was interfering with the aerodynamics of prototype supersonic aircraft. Pilots also limit the endurance of aircraft. You can do a halfway-around-the-world bombing run with forty year old planes, but it's unpleasant for the flight crews. You could put fighters in theatre the same way, but the pilot would go insane.
If Hitler had not started a war but instead concentrated on German innovation, they would have had a much easier time conquering the world twenty years later. Of course, by that time, they wouldn't need to. Kind of like what the US did. Economic invasion.
Stealth was a great idea. It was conceived to provide first strike capability to nuclear bombers in the face of comprehensive air defence networks. That niche was short term, until ballistic missiles took over, the stealth tech didn't have to face a drawn out war where the enemy could innovate (he got one look at the bombers on radar, then boom) and it didn't have to be perfect, it just had to increase the number of planes that could get through.
It's not a horrible idea for an interceptor like the F-22, or a specialized first strike attack jet like the F117. Making serious compromises for stealth in your workhorse fighter? That doesn't seem so smart.
"Are you saying that these forces are hostile to local population. Are they conquering troop? That is a defining characteristic of imperial."
No it's not. Locals often like living under an empire, although there's usually some inevitable friction. Look at eighteenth century Canada, nineteenth century Russia, or modern Gibraltar, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
A Short-Takeoff Vertical Landing aircraft is almost certainly not capable of Vertical Takeoff and Landing. If it were, the'd call it VTOL, not STOVL.
The point of the death star was to be flashy. It was blatantly described as a terror weapon.
IIRC from the books, sterilizing planets was something that happened occasionally, using more conventional means.
On a geologic time scale we're irrelevant. We've added a few hundred parts per billion of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. If you want to see some short sighted biology create a moderately interesting geological incident, look up "great oxygenation event."
The hyperspace in Star Wars is more like the hyperspace in Niven's Known Space or a Star Trek warp drive than like a jump drive. You don't take a shortcut, rather, you can travel faster than c in hyperspace. That type of hyperdrive has limitations around masses in most science fiction.
Presumably Han Solo needs to at least know something about the limitations of a hyperdrive if he's going to pilot a hyperdrive ship. Since he's always fixing it, he probably knows something about the principles behind it as well.
Why? If you used the antimatter and matter in a reactor to generate energy for a super laser, the laser beam would transport the energy to the planet. The energy transfer from the laser to the planet is much less problematic than from a ball of antimatter. If you tossed an antimatter asteroid at Earth it might not even hit the surface before it bounced off.
Historically, yes. Since it's never used any other way now, the Oxford dictionary has apparently determined your definition is obsolete and the one I gave is correct:
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
If you're going to make fun of someone's writing you should probably check a dictionary first. Bated means "in great suspense; very anxiously or excitedly" and is used correctly in the summary. You're thinking of "baited."
In that case, I disagree. If anything, recognizing growing obesity as an epidemic turns the reaction from "hey, there's a lardass who obviously doesn't take care of himself" to "hey, lots of us are turning into lardasses, maybe we should see if there's something else going on."
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Obesity in most western societies, especially those in North America meets all the criteria for an epidemic; it's also a major public health disaster that's only getting worse.
Societies have certainly always exerted pressure on their members. That's really what makes them societies. So far it's been a wildly successful strategy. In regards to obesity, it goes back a lot further than decades. Gluttony is one of the capital sins.
Look up "vapor pressure" on Wikipedia and have your mind blown.
Good point. Revenue may well be affected by those things though. If you're a cab company that has to maintain it's own fleet and pay out benefits, you having to balance your desire to always have a car handy when a customer wants a ride with the practicalities of actually having to have and maintain those vehicles. Uber doesn't have to do that.
Use UPS. Unless it tracks g forces. "Employee, your fitbit says you suffered over hundred fatal falls last weekend."
Aside from the Slashdot comments, where everyone gets treated badly, is anyone in this story treating overweight people like shit? Treating people badly isn't good, but some subtle societal pressure to take the edge of the obesity epidemic isn't a bad thing.
And then they start making private vehicles check in at weigh stations.
I remember noting the passenger + cargo weight limit on a small car I owned. It was 600 lbs.