I am not engaging in fanciful suppostion with non-existent Star Trek technology to turn an excellent attack jet into a poor excuse for an aircombat jet by bolting on AIM-9's. Make no mistake about it, a military jet tasked to eliminate another aircraft is a fighter (no matter how poorly suited to the task). Perhaps in its embryonic stage, the F117A was conceived as aircombat capable. However, the technological reality of designing an aircraft in the 1970's for stealth (poor aerodynamic shape, no radar, restricted air intake and exhaust, etc.) forces a rethinking about the role of such an aircraft.
I am pleased that there are no longer protestations about directional antenna mounted on the F117A. However, the fanciful supposition continues on other fronts.
If you have two platforms (far enough apart) with sensors that can figure out a line of bearing to the signals they are receiving (radar, radio transmissions, or what have you) you draw a line from each platform out along the line of bearing. Where the lines intersect is the approximate location of your target.
There seems to be a concession that RWS needs sensors to detect radar signals. Progress. But we're still in the Middle Ages where alchemy is the leading edge of scientific thought, because current RWS cannot pinpoint a radar emitting target. What would be required to get RWS to get a directional fix? First, the aircraft would need to be covered by thousands of sensors to get a better fix on the direction of radar signal (think dpi on your monitor). The best way to deploy the sensors would be in a spherical configuration but spherical shapes are good for hot air balloons, not fighter aircraft tasked with hunting down other aircraft. Fortunately, radar signals deploy in a sweeping motion so that the thousands of sensors would get multiple hits. With advanced software and the computing power available on the Starship Enterprise, the RWS system would determine the pattern of radar sweep against the sensors registering a hit, the signal strength and duration over the period of the sweep, model a virtual sphere of sensors to extrapolate the direction of the radar source. Of course, a virtual sphere is really not good enough and the more distant the radar source, the more inaccurate the result (maybe if you had millions of sensors). At least one more sensor encrusted F117A would be need to get a fix on the target. Not only that, there needs to be a central system to link up and to process the data from these F117A's (which could resemble flying porcupines if you go with antenna). This central system may require the computing power of multiple HAL's, minus the dementia, because it must continually process data of multiple moving sensors tracking a moving target. The math is making my head hurt. All the while, these sensor covered F117A's which are constantly broadcasting targeting data are still somehow radar invisible.
Actually the F-117 (like the B-2) also relies on wire mesh (it's actually a bit more complicated then that but that's the basic theory) to disappiate any radar signals that pentrate through the RAM. Recall the previous discussions on/. about using chicken wire to block cell phone signals. If some of the signal has gotten past the skin of the aircraft it could be detected by internal sensors. In any case the F-117 does have a few external sensors -- all your arguments about RCS aside. The "whiskers" on the front of the F-117 are actually sensors (airspeed, laser designator, etc). In this way they are useful without damaging the RCS by an unacceptable amount.
The mesh used in the stealth aircraft cover the air intakes. Radar signals reflect very well off the rotating blades of the engine and the concave shape of the intakes. Radar signals may be able penetrate cloth skin (like in a Stearman biplane) but it reflects off metal surfaces, the reflection is picked up by the radar antenna and that's how rad
I could say the same thing about your arguments. You are assuming that the F-117 doesn't have some means of secure communications. That's a pretty big assumption.
No such assumptions have been made, only dismissals of implausible Star Trek technology and kludgy tactical reasoning. The issue isn't secure communications. It's stealthiness, which would be lost by a stealth aircraft broadcasting away in the middle of a mission.
You can see pretty far from 30,000 feet.
Not nearly far enough unless you are a member of the Flat Earth Society. The only way to assure a line of sight is to be in a low earth orbit. All this is nonsense, anyway, because a stealth aircraft is not going to have an directional antenna grafted on so as to bounce back radar signals and give away its position. This is a totally ridiculous argument. Give it up!
Maybe in the 24th century, RWS technology can be used to track a target, not merely warn the pilot that the aircraft has been painted by radar.
Sorry, it's a bit more advanced then that. It gives you a signal strength and a line of bearing to the radar source. If you have two aircraft in different locations you can even triangulate the emissions and get an exact location.
Hogwash. RWS can discern frequencies and signal strength from which a pilot (or the RWS) would deduce the type of threat (radar guided missile or ground radar tracking). The best that RWS is going to give you is a crude indicator of direction of the radar signal. If an aircraft only has antenna/sensors at the front and rear, the pilot will only know if the front or rear sensor has been painted by radar. That is how RWS really works.
Triangulation requires three points (think triangle). So, now the premise is that three F117A would have to be dispatched to get a triangulation on an AWACS? This is getting to be a complicated mission to knock out an AWACS (but loads of fun to skewer).
So now your saying the F-117 doesn't have RWS because it would require external antennas? Wrong on both counts. RWS is extremely important the mission of the F-117. As stated before Stealth technology doesn't make it impossible to be detected -- it only makes it harder. They need to know where the radar sources are so they can evade them.
As I've previously explained, RWS is blind without the antenna/sensors attached to the hull of the aircraft. That is a fact. Even if the sensors are perfectly flush with the skin of the aircraft, the F117A is painted with a special radar absorbant material (RAM) which would insulate sensors from the radar signal. Of course, leaving those sensors unpainted gives you a nice radar reflecting surface. Knowledge of radar sources is part of pre-flight planning for all combat pilots, not just F117A pilots. Doesn't mean that you'll know where all the radar sites are located or that sites could not have been moved since the last report was compiled. Such is the nature of warfare.
If you take an F-117 and fly directly at a radar source (airborne or otherwise) sooner or later you will be detected. To use your sarcastic Star Trek analogys "It's not a cloaking device".
What's the difference from the first pass to the tenth (or whatever iteration you like) pass. This is comical. What's the point?
How long do you think it takes to target and fire an AIM-9? It would be a pretty pointless weapon if it couldn't be targeted and fired within a few seconds. This isn't Top Gun where you need to fly around and wait until you've "got lock". You pretty much point the AIM-9 in the right direction and pull the trigger. The new generation Russian IR missiles (the R-73 -- AA-11 to you NATO types) are even cooler -- they have helmet sighting -- i.e: look at the target and pull the trigger. Doe
If you move around too much you are going to lose coverage in the area you are attempting to cover. They would typically fly a lazy circle or a set box course within a specific area. As for the sitting target argument the AWACS is defenseless anyway -- it's defense lies in keeping the enemy away from it -- if they get within weapons range it's dead no matter what kind of course it's flying.
No AWACS pilot flies in lazy circles during a real conflict. The range of AWACS radar is huge. Coverage will not be lost unless it was already poor.
I guess you don't know that line of sight would require a directional antenna which would need to be constantly moving in relationship to the aircraft's location to preserve that line of sight.
Other aircraft have it -- I don't think it's a leap of faith to assume the F-117 does.
Assumption. Assumption. Assumption.
Is everything posited based on a leap of faith? That's just patentedly false. What aircraft actually has a directional antenna? And why on earth would you stick a protruberance like that on an aircraft designed for stealth? Have you ever seen a F117A or B-2 with a directional antenna sticking out of it? Why bother building stealth aircraft if you are going to put a gigantic radar reflecter on it? Even if anyone did stick a direction antenna on an aircraft, you know that the signal itself widens by the square of the distance. And let's not even forget about the problem of the losing line of sight when beyond the horizon.
There's also other options -- encrypted burst transmissions (they typically last a few microseconds), satellite communications (secure unless your enemy has sensors directly above you), or the aforementioned "Just receive the orders and not acknowledge them".
Oh, brother. This is really grabbing at straws.
I guess you've never heard of RWS (Radar Warning System) and direction finders. Guess those aren't going to be invented until the 24th century.
Maybe in the 24th century, RWS technology can be used to track a target, not merely warn the pilot that the aircraft has been painted by radar. Maybe in the 24th century, RWS technology wont require the addition of antenna or sensors attached to a stealth aircraft outer hull (hint: big RCS penalty). In this century, Mr. Sulu, RWS technology is not so advanced.
The doors wouldn't need to be opened until the F-117 was within easy weapons range of it's target -- they would only need to remain open for the few seconds required to acquire the target and fire the missiles.
You assume that the target can be acquired in a few seconds. That's never a given, especially in an air combat role.
The "Not suited to a dogfight" argument is getting old. I never said the F-117 would dogfight with anybody -- if it comes up against a modern fighter and it's detected then it's pretty much dead meat no matter how you cut it.
An AIM-9 is an aircombat weapon system and an air-to-air engagement is a dogfight. When there are much better alternatives for shooting down an aircraft, it makes no sense to outfit an F117A with AIM-9's and expect a slow jet to take down an even slower BUFF.
An AWACS on a mission would typically be flying a set course in a set area -- perhaps even a lazy circle at low power. They only move to new areas if the battle space changes and coverage is required somewhere else. In any case intercepting one would not be that hard. The hard part is getting past their fighter escort -- for which the F-117 is ideal.
An AWACS that sticks to a set course would be a sitting target. Why would anyone in his right mind do that? Especially when your radar coverage is better when you move around.
I guess you've never heard of line-of-sight transmissions and secure channels. That aside why would he have to acknowledge the directions?
I guess you don't know that line of sight would require a directional antenna which would need to be constantly moving in relationship to the aircraft's location to preserve that line of sight. That such an antenna, like externally mounted AIM-9's, would vastly increase the F117A RCS, that such an antenna would be useless in a beyond the horizon scenario unless the aircraft flies higher as it gets further to preserve the line of sight, that radio chatter, secured or unsecured, would still give away position. The F117A has no such fantasy Star Trek technology which would allow it constant, over the horizon yet still line of sight, secure, undetectable communication with a guiding radar station aircraft, base or ship.
As for acknowledgement of orders, it's standard procedure to acknowledge orders. Oh, let's say the AWACS or other High Value Asset/Target makes a course change like a sneaky commie rather than making constant lazy shoot-me-down loops. The hypothetical ground controller transmits course change coordinates and would expect an acknowledgement of the course change. It's just a military thing.
Of course, the normal stealth fighter mission (attack, not aircraft hunting) is done in complete communications silence but then the normal mission involves hitting fixed targets deep in hostile territory.
The F117A does not have any sophisticated tracking devices as it has optical/IR and probably GPS devices.
Says who?
Says me. The nose cone of the F117A doesn't have an antenna or dish, nor does the rest of the aircraft. Again, no Star Trek fanboi fantasy technology to detect the target.
Why is it such a leap of faith to assume that the bays can also carry AIM-9s? They might have to be modified somewhat (the AIM-120 had to be modified for the F-22 -- clipped wings and new software) but it's not as complicated as you seem to think it is. In addition the F-117 already has all of the IR/optical sensors it would need to target and fire AIM-9s.
Just about everything you've put forth is a leap of faith. It certainly has little semblance to fact or logic.
The AIM-9 seeks heat signatures with its own IR sensor on its nose. You've probably seen footage of ordnance people testing the IR sensor with a flashlight (yes, it's that sensitive). In order to engage the AIM-9 it has to be sticking out in the breeze so that the IR sensor can get a lock on the target aircraft. In order to do that, the lower bay door has to be open, which really blows up the RCS the F117A as well as really messing up with the aerodynamics of an inherently unaerodynamic shape (not a good thing for a dogfight). Btw, the modifications to the AMRAAM are to fit it into the Raptors lower bay, not to make pigs fly or turn attack aircraft into interceptors. No amount of modification to the AIM-9 will make up for these limitations.
Only on/. can you find a comment relating an article on the business moves of the CEO of an animation studio and a computer company related back to needing more advocation for Linux.
Yeah, but it's not complete until a/.er gets in a SCO bash.
Wrong, it was designed to defeat radar from above. Else it would have been useless against the Soviets who deployed their own airborne radar.
That's baloney. It was designed to evade radar from all angles. Its faceting profile is most effective on radar signals from the front, sides and below.
You don't need radar to seek out an AWACS. You can either be directed to it by your own forces or seek it out by tracking it's emissions.
That would be really difficult because the AWACS or other airborne target would be continuously moving and the F117A would have to receive constant flight corrections. The F117A pilot would not be able to acknowledge receiving directions for fear of giving away his position from his radio emissions. Once in the general area, the F117A would still need to be able to track by sight which is incredibly difficult if you don't know if the target is above, below or behind you. The F117A does not have any sophisticated tracking devices as it has optical/IR and probably GPS devices, consistent with its mission as a ground attack aircraft.
I didn't say it was designed to do that -- I said that was a possible mission back in the Cold War when we actually stood a chance of fighting an Air Force equal to our own. It's a very moot point now as none of our recent foes have Air Forces let alone AWACS or any other airborne HVTs for that matter. The F-22 would probably be better suited to this mission nowadays anyway -- but the F-22 didn't exist back in the 80s when the F-117 was designed.
A possible mission, but not a probable mission given the design of the F117A. Btw, the Skunk Works started working on the F117A in the 70's, not the 80's; President Jimmy Carter alluded to it in a speech (for which he was roundly ridiculed).
Indeed, the F-22 a dedicated fighter/interceptor is a much better suited aircraft for hunting airborne targets. The Raptor is actually designated F/A-22 (fighter/attack) because it can carry the JDAM, but it seems an unlikely attack aircraft. Given current military/political doctrine, I suppose expensive military hardware has to have a multi-role capability.
Yeah because it's real hard to catch a converted airliner.
A converted airliner is still a constantly moving target and the F117A is not a fast plane. It still has to hunt this thing down in the skies without benefit of it's own radar and would be easy prey for any fighter escorts whose ability to detect the F117A would be on par with the F117A's ability to detect its target.
Sorry, but those failings only exist in the minds of those idiots that have no idea what they are talking about. Do you really think you can't use Sidewinders in an internal bay? Hint: The F-22 carries all it's weapons in internal bays and the AIM-9 is certified for use on the F-22.
Name calling is always a good way to make your point.
The internal bays of the F117A are different from the F-22. The F117A bays are underneath the jet, designed for holding bombs not AIM-9s. The F-22 deploys the IR guided AIM-9's only from its side bays, and although opening the bays at high speed would adversely affect the handling of the aircraft, the side bays have a lesser effect on aerodynamics than from the bottom. In addition, the F-22 can track the target with its own radar, close in enough to use its AIM-9s or select an medium range radar guided AMRAAM, which are fired from standoff distances and can be more safely deployed from the bottom bays.
Only if you don't mind paying $10,000 for fuel and meat that tastes like it was marinaded in kerosene. Then there are neigbors' complaints about noise.
The F117A does not have radar to seek out airborne targets, because radar signals would also give away its position. The F117A was not specifically designed to avoid radar from above. The faceted surface on the F117A is designed to deflect radar signals from most angles, mostly from below, from the sides and from the front. If the F117A were designed to attack AWACS or other "high value" airborne targets, it would be an incredibly poorly suited design for that purpose. First of all, an attack on an airborne target would most likely be launched from above the target or at roughly level altitude, which would not be practical for an airplane designed to evade radar from above. In addition, the relatively slow speed (sub-sonic) of a the F117A and its lack of radar make it a poor interceptor, not to mention previously mentioned the failings of adding sidewinders on this attack aircraft.
So the "pays for Area 51" comments are probably accurate, but anyone who tries to pay their income taxes by dragging a Mr. Coffee and a used toilet seat into the IRS office and asking for two hammers in change is an idiot.
I've also heard that the F117 could be fitted for air-to-air capability but sidewinders seems unlikely. Sidewinders have an IR sensor on the nose to seek the hot tail exhaust of enemy jets and would need to be mounted outside of the internal bomb bays to be effective. If the sidewinders are mounted outside, the low radar profile of the F117A would be compromised and the jet would lose its best asset. Mounting the sidewinder in the internal bay would preserve the low radar profile while the sidewinders are in the compartment but the would also lose its ability to carry ground ordnance. Deploying the sidewinders from the internal bays would also adversely affect the aerodynamics of the F117A and create a higher radar profile, neither of which is desirable for a relatively slow jet that will be engaging in air-to-air combat.
Theoretically, sidewinders can be mounted on this special purpose jet, but in doing so, the F117A loses its strengths and is forced into a role for which it is less suitable.
As far as I know, Larry Ellison never got permission to buy that Russian MiG 29. Maybe, he can plunk down some of his pocket change for the F/A-18. I believe that given the state of the economy and of affairs in the world, one should strive to buy domestic instead of foreign. However, it seems as if he may have had an easier time getting a license to fly the MiG than the Hornet. If he can't fly it, maybe he can have a mast attached and sail it in America's Cup competition.
I've watched too much Discovery Wings. The F117A was given an "F" designation despite no air-to-air capability was to mollify the hot-shot fighter jocks who were chosen to fly the plane.
While I have seen hundreds of "discovered by Hubble this week" I have not seen one discovery in the news come from the station. It's usually fighting with the Russians or announcing it's going to cost ten times more than we thought to do one twentieth the science.
How about they've discovered another leak/problem in the space station this week?
Your posting gave me a laugh, although I have never personally seen a one table database with column names "Field1" through "Field34". However, the problems you mention are the result of the uninformed users, not the database product itself. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to want Access to fail, but dumb users is not a good one.
Last year the the Patent Office granted a patent for ecommerce over the Internet. The patent holder, an attorney, I believe, then proceeded with a systematic campaign to sue small businesses that hawk their wares over the Internet. He would "settle" with these businesses for a $5,000 licensing fee, which is substantially lower than the legal fees to chanllenge his patent. He didn't try to sue Amazon.com, who would surely have challenged and invalidated his patent claim. Pretty slimey business, but unfortunately, very legal.
The problem is that the Patent Office is so clueless about the patent applications put before them and seems to put little thought about the implications of the patents.
Liquidity.
Stock of a publicly owned company is much more liquid than that of a privately held company. Stock options become as valuable incentives, current shareholders can cash out on some of their holdings and there is greater prestige in a publicly owned company.
Liquidity means flexibility and flexibility means more available options. The core business is no better or worse for going public but the company itself has put itself in a better position.
Of course, there are downsides to being a public company. Investors can be unforgiving and have a short term outlook, often no longer than one quarter. Investor logic, being an oxymoron, can lead to adverse changes in share price because of unrelated events. Public companies are subject to bogus shareholder lawsuits spurred by attorneys who are motivated only by fees.
Slashdot Mirror
I put Linux on my 60GXP hoping that a vastly more reliable OS would compensate for the unreliabilty of the drive.
I thought my logic was undeniable. I guess it just doesn't work that way.
Theoretically Possible.
I am not engaging in fanciful suppostion with non-existent Star Trek technology to turn an excellent attack jet into a poor excuse for an aircombat jet by bolting on AIM-9's. Make no mistake about it, a military jet tasked to eliminate another aircraft is a fighter (no matter how poorly suited to the task). Perhaps in its embryonic stage, the F117A was conceived as aircombat capable. However, the technological reality of designing an aircraft in the 1970's for stealth (poor aerodynamic shape, no radar, restricted air intake and exhaust, etc.) forces a rethinking about the role of such an aircraft.
I am pleased that there are no longer protestations about directional antenna mounted on the F117A. However, the fanciful supposition continues on other fronts.
There seems to be a concession that RWS needs sensors to detect radar signals. Progress. But we're still in the Middle Ages where alchemy is the leading edge of scientific thought, because current RWS cannot pinpoint a radar emitting target. What would be required to get RWS to get a directional fix? First, the aircraft would need to be covered by thousands of sensors to get a better fix on the direction of radar signal (think dpi on your monitor). The best way to deploy the sensors would be in a spherical configuration but spherical shapes are good for hot air balloons, not fighter aircraft tasked with hunting down other aircraft. Fortunately, radar signals deploy in a sweeping motion so that the thousands of sensors would get multiple hits. With advanced software and the computing power available on the Starship Enterprise, the RWS system would determine the pattern of radar sweep against the sensors registering a hit, the signal strength and duration over the period of the sweep, model a virtual sphere of sensors to extrapolate the direction of the radar source. Of course, a virtual sphere is really not good enough and the more distant the radar source, the more inaccurate the result (maybe if you had millions of sensors). At least one more sensor encrusted F117A would be need to get a fix on the target. Not only that, there needs to be a central system to link up and to process the data from these F117A's (which could resemble flying porcupines if you go with antenna). This central system may require the computing power of multiple HAL's, minus the dementia, because it must continually process data of multiple moving sensors tracking a moving target. The math is making my head hurt. All the while, these sensor covered F117A's which are constantly broadcasting targeting data are still somehow radar invisible.
The mesh used in the stealth aircraft cover the air intakes. Radar signals reflect very well off the rotating blades of the engine and the concave shape of the intakes. Radar signals may be able penetrate cloth skin (like in a Stearman biplane) but it reflects off metal surfaces, the reflection is picked up by the radar antenna and that's how rad
How many of those years were with Microsoft? :^)
No such assumptions have been made, only dismissals of implausible Star Trek technology and kludgy tactical reasoning. The issue isn't secure communications. It's stealthiness, which would be lost by a stealth aircraft broadcasting away in the middle of a mission.
Not nearly far enough unless you are a member of the Flat Earth Society. The only way to assure a line of sight is to be in a low earth orbit. All this is nonsense, anyway, because a stealth aircraft is not going to have an directional antenna grafted on so as to bounce back radar signals and give away its position. This is a totally ridiculous argument. Give it up!
Hogwash. RWS can discern frequencies and signal strength from which a pilot (or the RWS) would deduce the type of threat (radar guided missile or ground radar tracking). The best that RWS is going to give you is a crude indicator of direction of the radar signal. If an aircraft only has antenna/sensors at the front and rear, the pilot will only know if the front or rear sensor has been painted by radar. That is how RWS really works.
Triangulation requires three points (think triangle). So, now the premise is that three F117A would have to be dispatched to get a triangulation on an AWACS? This is getting to be a complicated mission to knock out an AWACS (but loads of fun to skewer).
As I've previously explained, RWS is blind without the antenna/sensors attached to the hull of the aircraft. That is a fact. Even if the sensors are perfectly flush with the skin of the aircraft, the F117A is painted with a special radar absorbant material (RAM) which would insulate sensors from the radar signal. Of course, leaving those sensors unpainted gives you a nice radar reflecting surface. Knowledge of radar sources is part of pre-flight planning for all combat pilots, not just F117A pilots. Doesn't mean that you'll know where all the radar sites are located or that sites could not have been moved since the last report was compiled. Such is the nature of warfare.
What's the difference from the first pass to the tenth (or whatever iteration you like) pass. This is comical. What's the point?
No AWACS pilot flies in lazy circles during a real conflict. The range of AWACS radar is huge. Coverage will not be lost unless it was already poor.
Assumption. Assumption. Assumption.
Is everything posited based on a leap of faith? That's just patentedly false. What aircraft actually has a directional antenna? And why on earth would you stick a protruberance like that on an aircraft designed for stealth? Have you ever seen a F117A or B-2 with a directional antenna sticking out of it? Why bother building stealth aircraft if you are going to put a gigantic radar reflecter on it? Even if anyone did stick a direction antenna on an aircraft, you know that the signal itself widens by the square of the distance. And let's not even forget about the problem of the losing line of sight when beyond the horizon.
Oh, brother. This is really grabbing at straws.
Maybe in the 24th century, RWS technology can be used to track a target, not merely warn the pilot that the aircraft has been painted by radar. Maybe in the 24th century, RWS technology wont require the addition of antenna or sensors attached to a stealth aircraft outer hull (hint: big RCS penalty). In this century, Mr. Sulu, RWS technology is not so advanced.
You assume that the target can be acquired in a few seconds. That's never a given, especially in an air combat role.
An AIM-9 is an aircombat weapon system and an air-to-air engagement is a dogfight. When there are much better alternatives for shooting down an aircraft, it makes no sense to outfit an F117A with AIM-9's and expect a slow jet to take down an even slower BUFF.
Isn't that what Epcot is?
An AWACS that sticks to a set course would be a sitting target. Why would anyone in his right mind do that? Especially when your radar coverage is better when you move around.
I guess you've never heard of line-of-sight transmissions and secure channels. That aside why would he have to acknowledge the directions?
I guess you don't know that line of sight would require a directional antenna which would need to be constantly moving in relationship to the aircraft's location to preserve that line of sight. That such an antenna, like externally mounted AIM-9's, would vastly increase the F117A RCS, that such an antenna would be useless in a beyond the horizon scenario unless the aircraft flies higher as it gets further to preserve the line of sight, that radio chatter, secured or unsecured, would still give away position. The F117A has no such fantasy Star Trek technology which would allow it constant, over the horizon yet still line of sight, secure, undetectable communication with a guiding radar station aircraft, base or ship.
As for acknowledgement of orders, it's standard procedure to acknowledge orders. Oh, let's say the AWACS or other High Value Asset/Target makes a course change like a sneaky commie rather than making constant lazy shoot-me-down loops. The hypothetical ground controller transmits course change coordinates and would expect an acknowledgement of the course change. It's just a military thing.
Of course, the normal stealth fighter mission (attack, not aircraft hunting) is done in complete communications silence but then the normal mission involves hitting fixed targets deep in hostile territory.
The F117A does not have any sophisticated tracking devices as it has optical/IR and probably GPS devices.
Says who?
Says me. The nose cone of the F117A doesn't have an antenna or dish, nor does the rest of the aircraft. Again, no Star Trek fanboi fantasy technology to detect the target.
Why is it such a leap of faith to assume that the bays can also carry AIM-9s? They might have to be modified somewhat (the AIM-120 had to be modified for the F-22 -- clipped wings and new software) but it's not as complicated as you seem to think it is. In addition the F-117 already has all of the IR/optical sensors it would need to target and fire AIM-9s.
Just about everything you've put forth is a leap of faith. It certainly has little semblance to fact or logic.
The AIM-9 seeks heat signatures with its own IR sensor on its nose. You've probably seen footage of ordnance people testing the IR sensor with a flashlight (yes, it's that sensitive). In order to engage the AIM-9 it has to be sticking out in the breeze so that the IR sensor can get a lock on the target aircraft. In order to do that, the lower bay door has to be open, which really blows up the RCS the F117A as well as really messing up with the aerodynamics of an inherently unaerodynamic shape (not a good thing for a dogfight). Btw, the modifications to the AMRAAM are to fit it into the Raptors lower bay, not to make pigs fly or turn attack aircraft into interceptors. No amount of modification to the AIM-9 will make up for these limitations.
Yeah, but it's not complete until a /.er gets in a SCO bash.
That's baloney. It was designed to evade radar from all angles. Its faceting profile is most effective on radar signals from the front, sides and below.
You don't need radar to seek out an AWACS. You can either be directed to it by your own forces or seek it out by tracking it's emissions.
That would be really difficult because the AWACS or other airborne target would be continuously moving and the F117A would have to receive constant flight corrections. The F117A pilot would not be able to acknowledge receiving directions for fear of giving away his position from his radio emissions. Once in the general area, the F117A would still need to be able to track by sight which is incredibly difficult if you don't know if the target is above, below or behind you. The F117A does not have any sophisticated tracking devices as it has optical/IR and probably GPS devices, consistent with its mission as a ground attack aircraft.
I didn't say it was designed to do that -- I said that was a possible mission back in the Cold War when we actually stood a chance of fighting an Air Force equal to our own. It's a very moot point now as none of our recent foes have Air Forces let alone AWACS or any other airborne HVTs for that matter. The F-22 would probably be better suited to this mission nowadays anyway -- but the F-22 didn't exist back in the 80s when the F-117 was designed.
A possible mission, but not a probable mission given the design of the F117A. Btw, the Skunk Works started working on the F117A in the 70's, not the 80's; President Jimmy Carter alluded to it in a speech (for which he was roundly ridiculed).
Indeed, the F-22 a dedicated fighter/interceptor is a much better suited aircraft for hunting airborne targets. The Raptor is actually designated F/A-22 (fighter/attack) because it can carry the JDAM, but it seems an unlikely attack aircraft. Given current military/political doctrine, I suppose expensive military hardware has to have a multi-role capability.
Yeah because it's real hard to catch a converted airliner.
A converted airliner is still a constantly moving target and the F117A is not a fast plane. It still has to hunt this thing down in the skies without benefit of it's own radar and would be easy prey for any fighter escorts whose ability to detect the F117A would be on par with the F117A's ability to detect its target.
Sorry, but those failings only exist in the minds of those idiots that have no idea what they are talking about. Do you really think you can't use Sidewinders in an internal bay? Hint: The F-22 carries all it's weapons in internal bays and the AIM-9 is certified for use on the F-22.
Name calling is always a good way to make your point.
The internal bays of the F117A are different from the F-22. The F117A bays are underneath the jet, designed for holding bombs not AIM-9s. The F-22 deploys the IR guided AIM-9's only from its side bays, and although opening the bays at high speed would adversely affect the handling of the aircraft, the side bays have a lesser effect on aerodynamics than from the bottom. In addition, the F-22 can track the target with its own radar, close in enough to use its AIM-9s or select an medium range radar guided AMRAAM, which are fired from standoff distances and can be more safely deployed from the bottom bays.
Isn't Hurd Debian? No wonder ....
Only if you don't mind paying $10,000 for fuel and meat that tastes like it was marinaded in kerosene. Then there are neigbors' complaints about noise.
The F117A does not have radar to seek out airborne targets, because radar signals would also give away its position. The F117A was not specifically designed to avoid radar from above. The faceted surface on the F117A is designed to deflect radar signals from most angles, mostly from below, from the sides and from the front. If the F117A were designed to attack AWACS or other "high value" airborne targets, it would be an incredibly poorly suited design for that purpose. First of all, an attack on an airborne target would most likely be launched from above the target or at roughly level altitude, which would not be practical for an airplane designed to evade radar from above. In addition, the relatively slow speed (sub-sonic) of a the F117A and its lack of radar make it a poor interceptor, not to mention previously mentioned the failings of adding sidewinders on this attack aircraft.
Well, that explains the looks I got.
I've also heard that the F117 could be fitted for air-to-air capability but sidewinders seems unlikely. Sidewinders have an IR sensor on the nose to seek the hot tail exhaust of enemy jets and would need to be mounted outside of the internal bomb bays to be effective. If the sidewinders are mounted outside, the low radar profile of the F117A would be compromised and the jet would lose its best asset. Mounting the sidewinder in the internal bay would preserve the low radar profile while the sidewinders are in the compartment but the would also lose its ability to carry ground ordnance. Deploying the sidewinders from the internal bays would also adversely affect the aerodynamics of the F117A and create a higher radar profile, neither of which is desirable for a relatively slow jet that will be engaging in air-to-air combat.
Theoretically, sidewinders can be mounted on this special purpose jet, but in doing so, the F117A loses its strengths and is forced into a role for which it is less suitable.
As far as I know, Larry Ellison never got permission to buy that Russian MiG 29. Maybe, he can plunk down some of his pocket change for the F/A-18. I believe that given the state of the economy and of affairs in the world, one should strive to buy domestic instead of foreign. However, it seems as if he may have had an easier time getting a license to fly the MiG than the Hornet. If he can't fly it, maybe he can have a mast attached and sail it in America's Cup competition.
I've watched too much Discovery Wings. The F117A was given an "F" designation despite no air-to-air capability was to mollify the hot-shot fighter jocks who were chosen to fly the plane.
While I have seen hundreds of "discovered by Hubble this week" I have not seen one discovery in the news come from the station. It's usually fighting with the Russians or announcing it's going to cost ten times more than we thought to do one twentieth the science.
How about they've discovered another leak/problem in the space station this week?
You need to make sure that you're not going to be in the ash tray instead.
Your posting gave me a laugh, although I have never personally seen a one table database with column names "Field1" through "Field34". However, the problems you mention are the result of the uninformed users, not the database product itself. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to want Access to fail, but dumb users is not a good one.
I don't care what the weather is like, keep your raincoat on.
I hope NASA gets their Open Source software out soon. I'm getting thoroughly frustrated trying to write an OS for my planetary rover.
Last year the the Patent Office granted a patent for ecommerce over the Internet. The patent holder, an attorney, I believe, then proceeded with a systematic campaign to sue small businesses that hawk their wares over the Internet. He would "settle" with these businesses for a $5,000 licensing fee, which is substantially lower than the legal fees to chanllenge his patent. He didn't try to sue Amazon.com, who would surely have challenged and invalidated his patent claim. Pretty slimey business, but unfortunately, very legal. The problem is that the Patent Office is so clueless about the patent applications put before them and seems to put little thought about the implications of the patents.
Images of Gene Simmons keep popping into my head. I'm afraid to go to sleep now.
Liquidity. Stock of a publicly owned company is much more liquid than that of a privately held company. Stock options become as valuable incentives, current shareholders can cash out on some of their holdings and there is greater prestige in a publicly owned company. Liquidity means flexibility and flexibility means more available options. The core business is no better or worse for going public but the company itself has put itself in a better position. Of course, there are downsides to being a public company. Investors can be unforgiving and have a short term outlook, often no longer than one quarter. Investor logic, being an oxymoron, can lead to adverse changes in share price because of unrelated events. Public companies are subject to bogus shareholder lawsuits spurred by attorneys who are motivated only by fees.