The thought of Windows 95 running on a missile, though, that's a goodie!:)
Pilot: Joint-two to Mike Sierra niner five, come in Mike Sierra niner five....... Pilot: Joint-two to Mike Sierra niner five, I'm having trouble tracking what AWACS says is a Mig-27. Request instruction. MS95: Sorry, pilot, Mike Sierra niner five isn't supported any more. Push frequency to Mike Sierra X-ray Papa. Pilot:... Mike Sierra X-ray Papa, this is Joint-two, I'm having trouble with my aircraft, respond. MSXP: Turn on automatic updates. Pilot:... Say again? MSXP: Turn on automatic updates. Pilot: I can't lock my missiles onto this MiG-27! MSXP: Oh, that. MiG-27's are old hardware, not supported any more. You'll have to go to Mikoyan-Gurevich for support. Also, you might want to upgrade to AMRAAM XP. It provides the easiest user interface yet so that you can be more productive and have more fun. Mike Sierra X-ray Papa out.
I had a big post lined up, but as I think about it more and more, it's impossible to compare the F/A-22 to the Su-37, since a conventional aircraft and a "stealth" aircraft are in separate classes. As far as stealth goes, the F/A-22 is amazing that it can even do what it does due to the tradeoffs one must undergo to performance in order to gain stealth. Look at the F-117A, for example. While it's a striker, it's also very unstable, and without its computer system constantly making adjustments, the plane would likely be uncontrollable by a human, specifically due to its unorthodox design.
I still believe the F/A-22 to be a colossal waste of money, but that doesn't stop it from being a great example of technology. It's a conglomorate of every major advancement in warfare in the past few decades, and it shows. However, it also shows in its over $70 billion development price tag, and its massive unit cost.
I'm under the impression that conventional aircraft are not going to be obsolete any time in the foreseeable future. As long as production costs for stealth aircraft are so high, and as long as tradeoffs have to be made in order to retain stealth, there are going to be outperformers in the conventional world. The idea is that stealth will reduce losses and enable a higher success rate in combat, but that remains to be seen. The F-117 has been shot down (one was lost in Yugoslavia to an SA-6, an antiquated piece of equipment), and they have were "supposed" to be completely invisible. I have a hard time believing that the F/A-22 is going to be so, either, and I doubt it will be impervious to SAM or AAM attacks. I guess the main thing is, if it can cut down their effective range, or enable an easier missile evasion, it's considerably safer for the pilot, and the USAF's pocketbook.
But still, if an opfor (china, maybe?) comes up with an operational analog to the Australian Jindalee Operational Radar Network, the F/A-22, in essence, along with the F-35, B-2, F-117 and any other stealth aircraft the US might develop, will become nothing more than a standard aircraft. The other thing you have to ask yourself is, current radar is absorbed by the F/A-22's RAM coating, among other 'stealthy' characteristics. But what happens if conventional radar changes?
Radar now is a lot more accurate, and a lot more powerful, than it was when WWII was at its peak. What if it were possible to detect the absorption - Or reflection - of radar waves? It might sound absurd, but radar can detect radar, after all - How difficult would it be to set up, for example, a corridor or ring style network of radar systems capable of analyzing each other's received waves for anomalies/gaps? I don't work with radar, nor do I pretend to understand the details of its operation, but it seems to me that the only real way an aircraft could be stealth to radar is if it could "repeat" radar waves that hit it, essentially emulating a radar wave passing through.
Actually, now that I research it a bit more, this kind of radar already exists, in a sense. The Czech Tamara "Anti-Stealth" radar, and the newer VERA. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VERA_passive_sensor)
Believe it or not, Tengen's Tetris on the NES (not Nintendo's version) has a great multiplayer mode that tends to be a great hit at any get together that I have, and good times are had by all, seasoned Tetris veterans and newbies alike.
Of course, Tetris only goes on for so long. Here's a short list of fairly good games:
-Culdcept (PS2, Card Battle/Board game) -Mario Party (N64~Gamecube, Minigames/Board) -WarioWare, Inc (Gamecube, Minigames, hectic) -Burnout: Revenge (Multi, Street Racing, easy learning curve, fun crash mode)
There already is, or at least, was, a superior fighter to the Raptor and JSF, developed by Russia ten years ago, but probably never to see the light of day. It's called the Su-37 Flanker, and it outperforms the F/A-22 in every aspect but stealth.
A modified Su-35, it has no angle of attack limitation, and its thrust-vectoring nozzles, in addition to its unstable integral triplane layout, allow it to perform maneuvers that allow the aircraft to, for a moment, literally fly backwards in controlled flight, and can outmaneuver any Western fighter, including the projected/declassified performance ratings of the F/A-22, in close range combat, as seen in the Farnborough air show in 1996. It has a forward pulse-doppler array radar and rearward-facing radar as well, and as such can target and fire upon targets at its six o'clock with rearward-facing missiles. It also has advanced infrared sensors that can most likely target and track an F/A-22 in supersonic flight (since it would light up like a christmas tree to IR due to air friction).
So while the USAF stresses BVR combat, and do it well (though most situations don't allow BVR engagements, especially without AWACS), the Russian design bureaus favour supermaneuverability, and do it well. Besides, if the USAF really thought that BVR combat was all that was required to survive in the air, why would they equip their F/A-22 with a cannon, short-range missiles, and thrust-vectoring nozzles? The long and short of it is, close-range air engagements are far from history. The USAF knows it, and so do the Russians. While the Russians are allies, they provide exports to countries that could oppose the USA, and therefore this kind of technology should not be taken lightly, even if it isn't out there yet.
After all, the thought that technology and technological superiority could win air wars was what almost decimated the US Navy fighters in the Vietnam war, where their F-4 Phantoms didn't have internal guns - But rather relied on missiles, which are limited in supply and have a good chance of missing. Rules of engagement also required visual confirmation before firing, and the Phantoms were almost completely slaughtered by the North Vietnamese MiG's and their cannons, only finding reprieve when gun pods were fitted to their aircraft.
Anyway, fortunately for the F/A-22, it's not looking like Su-37's will be along any time soon, unless an export market opens up. Even so, I wouldn't call the F/A-22 or F-35 infallible, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take global collaboration or a decade of research to top it. The F/A-22 is already a dinosaur of an aircraft, having been in development since 1986. It's not the glorious alpha-and-omega of the aircraft world, and it has its share of problems, not the least of which is payload limitations due to the concept of carrying only internal stores (external stores would allow the aircraft to be detected on radar). And if any 'opfor' nation were to build an analog of the Jindalee Over the Horizon radar system, conceiveably every US stealth aircraft would be rendered useless.
Actually, the British Royal Air Force is probably planning to use the same armaments as the EF-2000 is primarily going to use - The MBDA Meteor for BVR combat, and the AIM-132 ASRAAM for short. It would only make sense to use a common armament across all operational aircraft, and having the F-35 carry Sidewinders while the EF-2000 carries ASRAAMs would be fairly costly. However, I can see both the JSF and the Typhoon using Sidewinders and AMRAAMs during the early introductory stages, as they're "tried and tested" weapons. As more Meteors and ASRAAMs are put into production, Europe as a whole will see the Sidewinder and AMRAAM/Sparrow phased out.
So, again, it would be costly for the RAF to stock both ASRAAMs and Sidewinders, or both AMRAAMs and Meteors when they only really need one from each category - More likely the ASRAAM and Meteor. If they're not given the source code to the systems on the JSF, they won't be able to adapt newer versions of the missiles to the weapons system.
Mind you, work is supposedly underway (as it's still in development anyway) with regard to fitting the Meteor into the weapons bay, since it's supposed to work out of the box, and I believe that the ASRAAM is already programmed to work. Problem is, if any new armaments or radically different variants come along (think AIM-9B versus AIM-9X and you get the picture), the RAF has to call on Lockheed Martin / US. Govm't to program it. Either that or contract with Microsoft for Automatic Windows Update for the JSF's OS.
So they're really getting a raw deal the way things are, and asking for the source is definitely within reason. It's not as though the source code would then be leaked onto the internet for script kiddies to make their own next-gen fighter jets out of or anything.
Or does this seem a little... Strange? I mean, it's all well and good to leave a honeypot out, but I think this is a bad move by Google. What about all those bees?
Slashdot Mirror
The thought of Windows 95 running on a missile, though, that's a goodie! :)
...... ... Mike Sierra X-ray Papa, this is Joint-two, I'm having trouble with my aircraft, respond. ... Say again?
Pilot: Joint-two to Mike Sierra niner five, come in Mike Sierra niner five.
Pilot: Joint-two to Mike Sierra niner five, I'm having trouble tracking what AWACS says is a Mig-27. Request instruction.
MS95: Sorry, pilot, Mike Sierra niner five isn't supported any more. Push frequency to Mike Sierra X-ray Papa.
Pilot:
MSXP: Turn on automatic updates.
Pilot:
MSXP: Turn on automatic updates.
Pilot: I can't lock my missiles onto this MiG-27!
MSXP: Oh, that. MiG-27's are old hardware, not supported any more. You'll have to go to Mikoyan-Gurevich for support. Also, you might want to upgrade to AMRAAM XP. It provides the easiest user interface yet so that you can be more productive and have more fun. Mike Sierra X-ray Papa out.
Not any more, I can't. Not any more.
I'm going to go take a shower now. Make that three.
I had a big post lined up, but as I think about it more and more, it's impossible to compare the F/A-22 to the Su-37, since a conventional aircraft and a "stealth" aircraft are in separate classes. As far as stealth goes, the F/A-22 is amazing that it can even do what it does due to the tradeoffs one must undergo to performance in order to gain stealth. Look at the F-117A, for example. While it's a striker, it's also very unstable, and without its computer system constantly making adjustments, the plane would likely be uncontrollable by a human, specifically due to its unorthodox design.
)
I still believe the F/A-22 to be a colossal waste of money, but that doesn't stop it from being a great example of technology. It's a conglomorate of every major advancement in warfare in the past few decades, and it shows. However, it also shows in its over $70 billion development price tag, and its massive unit cost.
I'm under the impression that conventional aircraft are not going to be obsolete any time in the foreseeable future. As long as production costs for stealth aircraft are so high, and as long as tradeoffs have to be made in order to retain stealth, there are going to be outperformers in the conventional world. The idea is that stealth will reduce losses and enable a higher success rate in combat, but that remains to be seen. The F-117 has been shot down (one was lost in Yugoslavia to an SA-6, an antiquated piece of equipment), and they have were "supposed" to be completely invisible. I have a hard time believing that the F/A-22 is going to be so, either, and I doubt it will be impervious to SAM or AAM attacks. I guess the main thing is, if it can cut down their effective range, or enable an easier missile evasion, it's considerably safer for the pilot, and the USAF's pocketbook.
But still, if an opfor (china, maybe?) comes up with an operational analog to the Australian Jindalee Operational Radar Network, the F/A-22, in essence, along with the F-35, B-2, F-117 and any other stealth aircraft the US might develop, will become nothing more than a standard aircraft. The other thing you have to ask yourself is, current radar is absorbed by the F/A-22's RAM coating, among other 'stealthy' characteristics. But what happens if conventional radar changes?
Radar now is a lot more accurate, and a lot more powerful, than it was when WWII was at its peak. What if it were possible to detect the absorption - Or reflection - of radar waves? It might sound absurd, but radar can detect radar, after all - How difficult would it be to set up, for example, a corridor or ring style network of radar systems capable of analyzing each other's received waves for anomalies/gaps? I don't work with radar, nor do I pretend to understand the details of its operation, but it seems to me that the only real way an aircraft could be stealth to radar is if it could "repeat" radar waves that hit it, essentially emulating a radar wave passing through.
Actually, now that I research it a bit more, this kind of radar already exists, in a sense. The Czech Tamara "Anti-Stealth" radar, and the newer VERA. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VERA_passive_sensor
Believe it or not, Tengen's Tetris on the NES (not Nintendo's version) has a great multiplayer mode that tends to be a great hit at any get together that I have, and good times are had by all, seasoned Tetris veterans and newbies alike.
Of course, Tetris only goes on for so long. Here's a short list of fairly good games:
-Culdcept (PS2, Card Battle/Board game)
-Mario Party (N64~Gamecube, Minigames/Board)
-WarioWare, Inc (Gamecube, Minigames, hectic)
-Burnout: Revenge (Multi, Street Racing, easy learning curve, fun crash mode)
The idea that there is no next big thing. What's the next big thing for humanity after that? The idea that the world is made of applesauce.
Mine's grape. I love it when my computer crashes, it's so trendy.
Popular internet site Slashdot.org upgrades its connection from 14.4kbps broadband to 28.8kbps ultra-wide broadband.
Now we have to put up with Mac OS XP! Where will we put the Start button?
There already is, or at least, was, a superior fighter to the Raptor and JSF, developed by Russia ten years ago, but probably never to see the light of day. It's called the Su-37 Flanker, and it outperforms the F/A-22 in every aspect but stealth.
A modified Su-35, it has no angle of attack limitation, and its thrust-vectoring nozzles, in addition to its unstable integral triplane layout, allow it to perform maneuvers that allow the aircraft to, for a moment, literally fly backwards in controlled flight, and can outmaneuver any Western fighter, including the projected/declassified performance ratings of the F/A-22, in close range combat, as seen in the Farnborough air show in 1996. It has a forward pulse-doppler array radar and rearward-facing radar as well, and as such can target and fire upon targets at its six o'clock with rearward-facing missiles. It also has advanced infrared sensors that can most likely target and track an F/A-22 in supersonic flight (since it would light up like a christmas tree to IR due to air friction).
So while the USAF stresses BVR combat, and do it well (though most situations don't allow BVR engagements, especially without AWACS), the Russian design bureaus favour supermaneuverability, and do it well. Besides, if the USAF really thought that BVR combat was all that was required to survive in the air, why would they equip their F/A-22 with a cannon, short-range missiles, and thrust-vectoring nozzles? The long and short of it is, close-range air engagements are far from history. The USAF knows it, and so do the Russians. While the Russians are allies, they provide exports to countries that could oppose the USA, and therefore this kind of technology should not be taken lightly, even if it isn't out there yet.
After all, the thought that technology and technological superiority could win air wars was what almost decimated the US Navy fighters in the Vietnam war, where their F-4 Phantoms didn't have internal guns - But rather relied on missiles, which are limited in supply and have a good chance of missing. Rules of engagement also required visual confirmation before firing, and the Phantoms were almost completely slaughtered by the North Vietnamese MiG's and their cannons, only finding reprieve when gun pods were fitted to their aircraft.
Anyway, fortunately for the F/A-22, it's not looking like Su-37's will be along any time soon, unless an export market opens up. Even so, I wouldn't call the F/A-22 or F-35 infallible, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take global collaboration or a decade of research to top it. The F/A-22 is already a dinosaur of an aircraft, having been in development since 1986. It's not the glorious alpha-and-omega of the aircraft world, and it has its share of problems, not the least of which is payload limitations due to the concept of carrying only internal stores (external stores would allow the aircraft to be detected on radar). And if any 'opfor' nation were to build an analog of the Jindalee Over the Horizon radar system, conceiveably every US stealth aircraft would be rendered useless.
Actually, the British Royal Air Force is probably planning to use the same armaments as the EF-2000 is primarily going to use - The MBDA Meteor for BVR combat, and the AIM-132 ASRAAM for short. It would only make sense to use a common armament across all operational aircraft, and having the F-35 carry Sidewinders while the EF-2000 carries ASRAAMs would be fairly costly. However, I can see both the JSF and the Typhoon using Sidewinders and AMRAAMs during the early introductory stages, as they're "tried and tested" weapons. As more Meteors and ASRAAMs are put into production, Europe as a whole will see the Sidewinder and AMRAAM/Sparrow phased out.
So, again, it would be costly for the RAF to stock both ASRAAMs and Sidewinders, or both AMRAAMs and Meteors when they only really need one from each category - More likely the ASRAAM and Meteor. If they're not given the source code to the systems on the JSF, they won't be able to adapt newer versions of the missiles to the weapons system.
Mind you, work is supposedly underway (as it's still in development anyway) with regard to fitting the Meteor into the weapons bay, since it's supposed to work out of the box, and I believe that the ASRAAM is already programmed to work. Problem is, if any new armaments or radically different variants come along (think AIM-9B versus AIM-9X and you get the picture), the RAF has to call on Lockheed Martin / US. Govm't to program it. Either that or contract with Microsoft for Automatic Windows Update for the JSF's OS.
So they're really getting a raw deal the way things are, and asking for the source is definitely within reason. It's not as though the source code would then be leaked onto the internet for script kiddies to make their own next-gen fighter jets out of or anything.
Or does this seem a little... Strange? I mean, it's all well and good to leave a honeypot out, but I think this is a bad move by Google. What about all those bees?