That doesn't sound very impressive at all, if you think about it. So, yeah, as long as at the start of the conflict we take out part of their known, large, built-up early warning system, it is basically useless. And even if it is operational, they have to have a bunch of high power stations networked together just to get a regional warning, and they can then point a very very powerful beam with huge energy requirements that can give better detail in a very small area, and they can then shine that around the region indicated and hope they hit something. But even then, they can't actually run that on a missile it is too big. So if they also have a modern in-air multi-vehicle target sharing system (they don't) then they could target a missile. But they don't, so all they can do is point AAA guns which won't ever be in range. But even if they had missiles that could use that data, they'd be at a very large disadvantage. The bigger a radar station, the sooner it gets blown up. Turning on the most powerful radar in the world at a low frequency from a fixed station? That doesn't last past the first day. The vast majority of the difficulties facing the US armed forces happen after the first day. The first day stuff, actually we're so good at that it isn't even a challenge.
Do they need to invest in that sort of radar? Yes, they do. So they can get the important people into the bunker. Does it somehow turn stealth technology into a boondoggle? No, it doesn't even reduce the benefits noticeably.
Right, I talked about it being around for a long time. That is the hint that I know something about it. I also expressed ideas about why that isn't very relevant, or at least, why they are doing it, what their use case is.
You just said the name of the thing. You didn't say anything. It seems obvious but... I don't care what a particular model is called, I care about how it relates to the subject. You need more than just a name of a thing for that thing to be relevant.
It isn't a magic spell where you say the name of a thing and the enemy airplanes fall from the sky. You might want to look it up and see what it does.
You thought vintage radar would detect stealth tech? Seriously? That's like... W T F level stuff.
The thing about stealth is it's effective vs certain things. Most are designed to be stealthy against the type of high frequency radar employed by modern aircraft.
Modern aircraft use those frequencies because those are the frequencies that can tell you exactly where a thing is. Lower frequencies give you less location data. You have to have enough data for accurate targeting or it is just a flashing light on the dash, except that gives your position away for hundreds of miles.
Those frequencies aren't just arbitrary choices, there are real physical sciencey engineering reasons why specific ranges of frequencies are used for different things. Just saying, "the type of high frequency radar employed by modern aircraft" isn't enough. You have to also ask, "Is there a reason why all the modern aircraft employ higher frequency radar? Is it different, or just a fad?" You'll find out even with the most basic search that yes, there are real differences in the utility of different frequencies for radar. You might even come to realize, if you look into it, that it isn't only true that stealth tech is designed to be stealthy against radar employed by modern aircraft, but that they're designed to be stealthy to the range of frequencies that are useful for targeting missiles at fast-moving aircraft. Once you get out of the fad mindset and start thinking in terms of ranges of potential capabilities, then it becomes a bit more obvious what is going on.
And if, hypothetically, you installed a bunch of WWII radar to try to detect stealth craft, and it worked... you get some warning to run to the bomb shelter, but you can't do anything else with that. Your base still blows up. You can't guide a missile, because that sort of radar doesn't provide enough location detail to hit a target at that speed, even if it can see it perfectly. The missile would just zoom past a quarter mile away, get a couple miles, realize it missed, and have to turn around. Or if you need a game analogy, WW-II radar is more like "Marco Polo" than "Duck Hunt."
Right, you start throwing up lead because here it comes, and then computer-aided targeting systems blast you to hell.
The one too fast to aim at has a much easier time in that battle than the one who is slow moving or fixed on the ground; one can aim and is hard to hit, the other can't aim but is easy to hit.
Nobody is going to understand this stuff by thinking, because it is all well-measured and there are fairly concrete answers about what is better in what situation. People trying to think, tend to think the A-10's armor makes it survivable, but data from the field says no. People think infantry support requires looking out the window, field data calls that a "friendly fire incident," or "where the hospital used to be." What infantry really could use is close support with good enough sensors to drop small stuff on locations they choose. And that has nothing to do with getting close, it has to do with location and targeting; eg, electronics. If you're trying to do close air support, and the enemy is throwing up lead, you can see those positions really really well. If your targeting systems are accurate enough to fire close to the friendlies, and your targeting system knows where those friendlies are, you can do a lot of good. There is no reason why being slow and loitering overhead is better in that situation than being higher up and moving faster.
The reason old planes had to be slow to do that job, the only weapon small enough to use close to friendlies didn't have good targeting, and wasn't useful at high speed. So you end with A-10s that supposedly are doing close support with a cannon, but because they're the most vulnerable thing in the sky to a MANPAD, they don't actually operate that way, and instead they fly around the edges of combat trying to take shots at vehicles... with missiles. They end up mostly having to use missiles, because even with all that armor, they're not survivable. They're not designed for infantry support, they're designed to attack armor that is on the move and has minimum air defense other than portable AAA. An important role, in a certain type of war that needed to be prepared for at the time, but is no longer a significant concern.
This is all stuff you can learn about, instead of trying to figure out or guess at. "Gosh in the movies you just throw more and more lead in the air until they crash into it, the enemy can just do that and we're screwed." Cliches about strategy and logistics might be educational here.
If twitter isn't willing to take assertive action to win these battles, they will lose their current exalted position. If you let haters drive people off, those people have left, and the haters are still there to rinse and repeat.
Same in other forums. You either have a system that can counteract it, or you completely lose majority demographics.
No, the casinos with his name on them belong to other people, because he mismanaged them and turned them over to his creditors to pay the debts related to them.
Close air support is whatever level it is at. The operational range depends on the ability to sense the ground accurately and deliver munitions. We have no data yet about how the F-35 even performs this role, much less how good at it it is.
People have a video-game idea of an A-10 flying in and looking out the window, but if you look at the data, it mostly fires missiles from nearby, and gets shot down pretty quick if it gets too close. Which is tricky, because it is very slow. Faster planes tend to have a hard time delivering munitions accurately enough at the sort of speed that makes things safer.
You have no data about how it performs at close air support, and no data about how it performs dogfighting. Public information about how it performed in dogfighting training was using software where it was designed to lose. There is no public data saying it is actually bad at the real task. None. Just people breathlessly repeating what the read on the internet, that was repeated from the opinions of blowhards who didn't have access to any information that would confirm their prognostications.
Heck, we don't even know what they're installing in the central compartment for the close air support mission. What we do know is that the people in the military actually involved in the technology, who do know what it is, support the program very strongly. And that it cost more than the original price tag. (that's true for everything the military buys though) And that's about all we actually know about it. Oh yeah, it comes in variants. We know that.
They changed the JS; if you block most of it, but whitelisted some, you have to add one of the new JS domains in to have it keep working. It seems to change which code it is actually using depending on if you clicked on nested stories already, or something. It looks like a bug that just only bites some people, and they don't mind the sloppy code so it stays.
They don't seem to claim it can read the screen, just that it can write to the screen...
The attack scenario seems to involve having people physically in the same room with the monitor controlling the gag, but only having to hack the monitor in advance. The only tiny thing this gives them is that they don't have to have a dongle plugged into the monitor cable at one end in order to fake what is on the screen.
Low frequency radar has been around for a long time, and no there is no country using that instead of higher frequency radar.
They use that in addition to. And the thing about actual low frequency radar; yes it can detect stealth technology at a higher rate than regular radar. But it doesn't give you a specific position. You're basically using an intermediate radar that is less like a combat radar, and more like a weather radar. It isn't new. In the ancient past they didn't both with that, because they cared mostly about getting an accurate reading to guide missiles. You don't guide missiles with low frequency radar. It is an early warning system, so that when none of your regular radar is showing anything, and something blows up, you know "was that an air attack, or a ground attack, or an accident, or what?" You want that extra tool when the enemy has stealth. You want the command center to be able to have the generals get in the bunker when the stealth bombers invade, even if you can't shoot at them.
Different frequencies of radar have real, physical differences in what they can tell you. There isn't a magic anti-stealth beam yet, sorry kids.
design decisions of the F-35 are designed to reduce operating costs
And that would have been a good idea... if it had worked out. But it didn't: the F-35 has massively higher operational costs than other modern fighters it competes with.
We don't know it has higher operating costs. Pundits have speculated as much, but experts with knowledge keep saying it will reduce operating costs. Your whole meme about "if it had worked" isn't even a thing. Let me explain to you how it actually reads: you say already decided it sucked, before you had data, because pundits. Then when new information came out later, and the program was succeeding, you refused to listen because you already had decided it was a failure. Done explaining.
If you can see it you can hit it no matter how small the radar cross section is.
That would be true if the enemy had sci-fi phaser blasters or something, but they don't. You can't aim at an aircraft with your eyes and a projectile. It is not practicable.
You read on the internet, before the thing was even built, that it was awful at all those roles. You failed to understand the comments; it was just some guy saying "in his opinion, it will end up sucking at those things." If you had remembered it was a prognostication, you'd have been ready to reserve judgment as to the actual capabilities achieved until there are operational results to look at. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and it isn't even out of the oven yet. Just waving your hands doesn't mean it sucks.
You may have stepped in some strategic misinformation. Like "carrots improve night vision," which is still being taught in schools even thought the Germans already know about radar.
Low-frequency radar is a great tool. And it can indeed detect stealth craft. The problem is, you need a giant powerful broadcast, and you don't get location data. You just detect, "gosh there is something out there." It isn't what Serbia used to shoot down a plane; they used regular AA radar, the plane wasn't stealth even though it was a stealth model, because it was operating in wet weather where it looks normal on radar. It has to be dry to be stealthy. They took a chance, and got hit.
You thought vintage radar would detect stealth tech? Seriously? That's like... W T F level stuff.
It also turns out that when you program the computer to run in extra-safe mode... it turns, climbs, and otherwise runs slower. That's the thing that was based on something real.
Too bad Mr Deep Eyesocket didn't actually read any of his own links, he might have learned something.
The quote about turning, climbing, running slow was from RAND corp, from 2008, and not based on anything real or even from the military; they programmed a war sim themselves. Using non-classified (read: fake) data sources. And indeed, they managed to program it so that in the simulation, the thing with the label "F-35" did indeed suck. Not sure that means what some of these people think it means. Gosh, scary thought, but what if these morons also believed everything else that RAND Corp said?! Yikes!
They decided a few years ago that the airplanes don't work, so any news of them being the next generation and more this, and more than, and better at the other thing, that just doesn't matter to them. They can't see the words, because it would mean they were wrong in the past. Instead, they'll just be wrong forever.
It is hilarious, but useful. If nobody can even talk about the thing online without an army of stupid popping up, it will be harder for the enemy to prepare. Maybe.
Before I realized you had linked the actual story, I was going to give a link in addition to calling you a fucking liar.
But you already have the link.
You're a fucking liar, and you absolutely did not think that what Woz did was "this kind of thing." That is completely horseshit and you know it. Pathetic.
The funny part about the people trying to get hyper-technical about the vocabulary is how many mistakes they make, mistakes that according to their argument must be willful.
So I say that when you mistakenly forget that the case is part of the clock, and a part of it that has to be built to exist, you didn't just make a mistake. You intentionally misused the word to manufacture outrage. Shame on you!
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't sound very impressive at all, if you think about it. So, yeah, as long as at the start of the conflict we take out part of their known, large, built-up early warning system, it is basically useless. And even if it is operational, they have to have a bunch of high power stations networked together just to get a regional warning, and they can then point a very very powerful beam with huge energy requirements that can give better detail in a very small area, and they can then shine that around the region indicated and hope they hit something. But even then, they can't actually run that on a missile it is too big. So if they also have a modern in-air multi-vehicle target sharing system (they don't) then they could target a missile. But they don't, so all they can do is point AAA guns which won't ever be in range. But even if they had missiles that could use that data, they'd be at a very large disadvantage. The bigger a radar station, the sooner it gets blown up. Turning on the most powerful radar in the world at a low frequency from a fixed station? That doesn't last past the first day. The vast majority of the difficulties facing the US armed forces happen after the first day. The first day stuff, actually we're so good at that it isn't even a challenge.
Do they need to invest in that sort of radar? Yes, they do. So they can get the important people into the bunker. Does it somehow turn stealth technology into a boondoggle? No, it doesn't even reduce the benefits noticeably.
Right, I talked about it being around for a long time. That is the hint that I know something about it. I also expressed ideas about why that isn't very relevant, or at least, why they are doing it, what their use case is.
You just said the name of the thing. You didn't say anything. It seems obvious but... I don't care what a particular model is called, I care about how it relates to the subject. You need more than just a name of a thing for that thing to be relevant.
It isn't a magic spell where you say the name of a thing and the enemy airplanes fall from the sky. You might want to look it up and see what it does.
You thought vintage radar would detect stealth tech? Seriously? That's like... W T F level stuff.
The thing about stealth is it's effective vs certain things. Most are designed to be stealthy against the type of high frequency radar employed by modern aircraft.
Modern aircraft use those frequencies because those are the frequencies that can tell you exactly where a thing is. Lower frequencies give you less location data. You have to have enough data for accurate targeting or it is just a flashing light on the dash, except that gives your position away for hundreds of miles.
Those frequencies aren't just arbitrary choices, there are real physical sciencey engineering reasons why specific ranges of frequencies are used for different things. Just saying, "the type of high frequency radar employed by modern aircraft" isn't enough. You have to also ask, "Is there a reason why all the modern aircraft employ higher frequency radar? Is it different, or just a fad?" You'll find out even with the most basic search that yes, there are real differences in the utility of different frequencies for radar. You might even come to realize, if you look into it, that it isn't only true that stealth tech is designed to be stealthy against radar employed by modern aircraft, but that they're designed to be stealthy to the range of frequencies that are useful for targeting missiles at fast-moving aircraft. Once you get out of the fad mindset and start thinking in terms of ranges of potential capabilities, then it becomes a bit more obvious what is going on.
And if, hypothetically, you installed a bunch of WWII radar to try to detect stealth craft, and it worked... you get some warning to run to the bomb shelter, but you can't do anything else with that. Your base still blows up. You can't guide a missile, because that sort of radar doesn't provide enough location detail to hit a target at that speed, even if it can see it perfectly. The missile would just zoom past a quarter mile away, get a couple miles, realize it missed, and have to turn around. Or if you need a game analogy, WW-II radar is more like "Marco Polo" than "Duck Hunt."
Right, you start throwing up lead because here it comes, and then computer-aided targeting systems blast you to hell.
The one too fast to aim at has a much easier time in that battle than the one who is slow moving or fixed on the ground; one can aim and is hard to hit, the other can't aim but is easy to hit.
Nobody is going to understand this stuff by thinking, because it is all well-measured and there are fairly concrete answers about what is better in what situation. People trying to think, tend to think the A-10's armor makes it survivable, but data from the field says no. People think infantry support requires looking out the window, field data calls that a "friendly fire incident," or "where the hospital used to be." What infantry really could use is close support with good enough sensors to drop small stuff on locations they choose. And that has nothing to do with getting close, it has to do with location and targeting; eg, electronics. If you're trying to do close air support, and the enemy is throwing up lead, you can see those positions really really well. If your targeting systems are accurate enough to fire close to the friendlies, and your targeting system knows where those friendlies are, you can do a lot of good. There is no reason why being slow and loitering overhead is better in that situation than being higher up and moving faster.
The reason old planes had to be slow to do that job, the only weapon small enough to use close to friendlies didn't have good targeting, and wasn't useful at high speed. So you end with A-10s that supposedly are doing close support with a cannon, but because they're the most vulnerable thing in the sky to a MANPAD, they don't actually operate that way, and instead they fly around the edges of combat trying to take shots at vehicles... with missiles. They end up mostly having to use missiles, because even with all that armor, they're not survivable. They're not designed for infantry support, they're designed to attack armor that is on the move and has minimum air defense other than portable AAA. An important role, in a certain type of war that needed to be prepared for at the time, but is no longer a significant concern.
This is all stuff you can learn about, instead of trying to figure out or guess at. "Gosh in the movies you just throw more and more lead in the air until they crash into it, the enemy can just do that and we're screwed." Cliches about strategy and logistics might be educational here.
My State is 100% vote by mail, and we don't have this as a problem.
If twitter isn't willing to take assertive action to win these battles, they will lose their current exalted position. If you let haters drive people off, those people have left, and the haters are still there to rinse and repeat.
Same in other forums. You either have a system that can counteract it, or you completely lose majority demographics.
It might have been a "generational project" that the neo-cons started in the 80s and is finally... ripening.
If you're running code locally, why is it even a compromise? Isn't it allowed to delete your stuff, if that is what it does?
No, the casinos with his name on them belong to other people, because he mismanaged them and turned them over to his creditors to pay the debts related to them.
Close air support is extreme low level.
Close air support is whatever level it is at. The operational range depends on the ability to sense the ground accurately and deliver munitions. We have no data yet about how the F-35 even performs this role, much less how good at it it is.
People have a video-game idea of an A-10 flying in and looking out the window, but if you look at the data, it mostly fires missiles from nearby, and gets shot down pretty quick if it gets too close. Which is tricky, because it is very slow. Faster planes tend to have a hard time delivering munitions accurately enough at the sort of speed that makes things safer.
You have no data about how it performs at close air support, and no data about how it performs dogfighting. Public information about how it performed in dogfighting training was using software where it was designed to lose. There is no public data saying it is actually bad at the real task. None. Just people breathlessly repeating what the read on the internet, that was repeated from the opinions of blowhards who didn't have access to any information that would confirm their prognostications.
Heck, we don't even know what they're installing in the central compartment for the close air support mission. What we do know is that the people in the military actually involved in the technology, who do know what it is, support the program very strongly. And that it cost more than the original price tag. (that's true for everything the military buys though) And that's about all we actually know about it. Oh yeah, it comes in variants. We know that.
When people start shrieking "racist!" I know they've reached the end of valid arguments.
Right, because everybody knows racism ended in 1964.
They changed the JS; if you block most of it, but whitelisted some, you have to add one of the new JS domains in to have it keep working. It seems to change which code it is actually using depending on if you clicked on nested stories already, or something. It looks like a bug that just only bites some people, and they don't mind the sloppy code so it stays.
They don't seem to claim it can read the screen, just that it can write to the screen...
The attack scenario seems to involve having people physically in the same room with the monitor controlling the gag, but only having to hack the monitor in advance. The only tiny thing this gives them is that they don't have to have a dongle plugged into the monitor cable at one end in order to fake what is on the screen.
Yeah, but if you hack the video cable... you can change the video! z0MG!!!!!!
Sorry to burst your smug bubble, but...
http://hackaday.com/2014/06/18...
No, that doesn't make you safe.
Low frequency radar has been around for a long time, and no there is no country using that instead of higher frequency radar.
They use that in addition to. And the thing about actual low frequency radar; yes it can detect stealth technology at a higher rate than regular radar. But it doesn't give you a specific position. You're basically using an intermediate radar that is less like a combat radar, and more like a weather radar. It isn't new. In the ancient past they didn't both with that, because they cared mostly about getting an accurate reading to guide missiles. You don't guide missiles with low frequency radar. It is an early warning system, so that when none of your regular radar is showing anything, and something blows up, you know "was that an air attack, or a ground attack, or an accident, or what?" You want that extra tool when the enemy has stealth. You want the command center to be able to have the generals get in the bunker when the stealth bombers invade, even if you can't shoot at them.
Different frequencies of radar have real, physical differences in what they can tell you. There isn't a magic anti-stealth beam yet, sorry kids.
If you're simulating something, can't you just do that in middleware? Why would you want to engineer hardware?
design decisions of the F-35 are designed to reduce operating costs
And that would have been a good idea... if it had worked out. But it didn't: the F-35 has massively higher operational costs than other modern fighters it competes with.
We don't know it has higher operating costs. Pundits have speculated as much, but experts with knowledge keep saying it will reduce operating costs. Your whole meme about "if it had worked" isn't even a thing. Let me explain to you how it actually reads: you say already decided it sucked, before you had data, because pundits. Then when new information came out later, and the program was succeeding, you refused to listen because you already had decided it was a failure. Done explaining.
If you can see it you can hit it no matter how small the radar cross section is.
That would be true if the enemy had sci-fi phaser blasters or something, but they don't. You can't aim at an aircraft with your eyes and a projectile. It is not practicable.
You read on the internet, before the thing was even built, that it was awful at all those roles. You failed to understand the comments; it was just some guy saying "in his opinion, it will end up sucking at those things." If you had remembered it was a prognostication, you'd have been ready to reserve judgment as to the actual capabilities achieved until there are operational results to look at. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and it isn't even out of the oven yet. Just waving your hands doesn't mean it sucks.
You may have stepped in some strategic misinformation. Like "carrots improve night vision," which is still being taught in schools even thought the Germans already know about radar.
Low-frequency radar is a great tool. And it can indeed detect stealth craft. The problem is, you need a giant powerful broadcast, and you don't get location data. You just detect, "gosh there is something out there." It isn't what Serbia used to shoot down a plane; they used regular AA radar, the plane wasn't stealth even though it was a stealth model, because it was operating in wet weather where it looks normal on radar. It has to be dry to be stealthy. They took a chance, and got hit.
You thought vintage radar would detect stealth tech? Seriously? That's like... W T F level stuff.
It also turns out that when you program the computer to run in extra-safe mode... it turns, climbs, and otherwise runs slower. That's the thing that was based on something real.
Too bad Mr Deep Eyesocket didn't actually read any of his own links, he might have learned something.
The quote about turning, climbing, running slow was from RAND corp, from 2008, and not based on anything real or even from the military; they programmed a war sim themselves. Using non-classified (read: fake) data sources. And indeed, they managed to program it so that in the simulation, the thing with the label "F-35" did indeed suck. Not sure that means what some of these people think it means. Gosh, scary thought, but what if these morons also believed everything else that RAND Corp said?! Yikes!
They decided a few years ago that the airplanes don't work, so any news of them being the next generation and more this, and more than, and better at the other thing, that just doesn't matter to them. They can't see the words, because it would mean they were wrong in the past. Instead, they'll just be wrong forever.
It is hilarious, but useful. If nobody can even talk about the thing online without an army of stupid popping up, it will be harder for the enemy to prepare. Maybe.
What most Slashdotters can't relate to is having the cops called on you and being the subject of a viral shitstorm for doing this.
No, but they can sure as fuck relate to being the sort of person who calls the cops on the kid!
Before I realized you had linked the actual story, I was going to give a link in addition to calling you a fucking liar.
But you already have the link.
You're a fucking liar, and you absolutely did not think that what Woz did was "this kind of thing." That is completely horseshit and you know it. Pathetic.
The funny part about the people trying to get hyper-technical about the vocabulary is how many mistakes they make, mistakes that according to their argument must be willful.
So I say that when you mistakenly forget that the case is part of the clock, and a part of it that has to be built to exist, you didn't just make a mistake. You intentionally misused the word to manufacture outrage. Shame on you!