161–170 of 212 posts
Is it just me or has the Pentagon and the complex largely replaced the word "soldier" with "warfighter"? Feel like I've seen it a lot lately and I'm not sure what the change implies
US's answer to Russia's Zircon missile? https://www.military.com/equipment/weapons/why-russias-hyper... > U.S. Aegis missile interceptor systems require 8-10 seconds of reaction time to intercept incoming attacks. In those 8-10 seconds, the Russian Zircon missiles will already have traveled 20 kilometers, and the interceptor missiles do not fly fast enough to catch up.
No. Russian Zircon is to deal with the next after nuclear strategic threat to Russia - US aircraft carrier groups. US pursue hypersonic weapons for different purpose - fast global much less than nuclear strike capability, ie. being able to strike any given target anywhere in like under half an hour. And thus not really much of hypersonic development in US - the cheap ballistic would do it better, especially with Spac…
A hyper-sonic cruise missile is much more stealthy, giving it the element of surprise.
Is it just me or has the Pentagon and the complex largely replaced the word "soldier" with "warfighter"? Feel like I've seen it a lot lately and I'm not sure what the change implies
> replaced the word "soldier" with "warfighter" Technically, only the Army has soldiers. The non-exclusionary term used to be “men and women in uniform,” but that got tired, so I guess we get “warfighters” now.
I'm curious about the PR strategies at play when governments either saber-rattle or keep secrets. Announcing breakthrough, surprising even, HAWC tech seems to clue in opponents about what sorts of countermeasures they'd want to start developing. By contrast, the US has held the high-altitude Aurora/SR-72/whatever tech very close to the vest for decades, when it's pretty much obvious that a new generation of high alti…
Reminds me of the Doomsday Machine in Dr. Strangelove.
> The Whole Point of the Doomsday Machine is Lost if You Keep it a Secret!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The titanium structure was complex to maintain. Welding needed to be done in "bubble" work stations under protective gas Operational complexity is orthogonal, and tends to be inversely proportional to simplicity in implementation... For instance they needed to refuel the thing immediately upon reaching operating temperature in flight, since it leaked like a sieve on the runway until everything expanded. Rather than…
>Operational complexity is orthogonal, and tends to be inversely proportional to simplicity in implementation ... I'm not sure what your point is with this. All complexity is operational complexity.
Uh, what?
Example to illustrate the difference:
Automatic transmission in an automobile, operationally simpler than the manual constant-mesh trans it broadly replaced: Driver (AKA the Operator) selects drive or reverse when stationary, no need to participate in gear changing while in motion. Substantially more complex in implementation in exchange; go look at the hydraulic valve body of your average slushbox.
Manual trans: Simple implementation, single clutch assembly, sets of gears selected mechanically by axially sliding dogs on splined shafts. Operationally complex since the driver must continuously participate in the selecting of gears and clutch operation while in motion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> relatively modest supersonic passenger flight has proven to be a commercial failure Tried it once in the 70s. Didn’t work. Everyone go home.
We tried with the British-French Concorde, the US Boeing 2707, and the Russian Tupolev Tu-144. That's three tries (or maybe two, the Boeing version was cancelled before prototype completion). Maybe we can do better today with the lessons learnt and the advances in material science since then. There's several startups banking on that. But so far commercial supersonic flight has only worked out as prestige projects, no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very hard for me to imagine a world in which scramjet technology is both useful for commercial travel, and impossible to develop without massive government funding. It seems to me like technology needs to reach a point that it can be developed entirely commercially before it can be made safely and consistently enough enough for commercial passengers. Take rockets for instance. Technology had to catch up to make…
pretty much all of air travel had direct government subsidy in the form of postal contracts in its early days and later price controls. automakers also had a huge subsidy in the form of the massive capital expenditure on highways that were free to use. developing technologies at taxpayer expense for strategic purposes is nothing new. if private airlines were left to their own devices we probably won't ever move away…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> relatively modest supersonic passenger flight has proven to be a commercial failure Tried it once in the 70s. Didn’t work. Everyone go home.
We tried with the British-French Concorde, the US Boeing 2707, and the Russian Tupolev Tu-144. That's three tries (or maybe two, the Boeing version was cancelled before prototype completion). Maybe we can do better today with the lessons learnt and the advances in material science since then. There's several startups banking on that. But so far commercial supersonic flight has only worked out as prestige projects, no…
I guess you could always fly at a much higher altitude (with its own problems) but it all seems motivated by, well, prestige as you put it. Like, I have a hard time believing it'll ever be more economical (as a commodity/for the market), environmentally friendly, profitable (for the operator), or just more practical than transsonic flight. The only advantage seems to be bragging rights, and the ability to cross great distances really quickly for an elite few.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> relatively modest supersonic passenger flight has proven to be a commercial failure Tried it once in the 70s. Didn’t work. Everyone go home.
We tried with the British-French Concorde, the US Boeing 2707, and the Russian Tupolev Tu-144. That's three tries (or maybe two, the Boeing version was cancelled before prototype completion). Maybe we can do better today with the lessons learnt and the advances in material science since then. There's several startups banking on that. But so far commercial supersonic flight has only worked out as prestige projects, no…
I suspect that further optimizing the fast part of air travel doesn't offer as much gain as further optimizing the slow part, which is between the real origin and the plane door and between the plane door and the real destination.
Is it just me or has the Pentagon and the complex largely replaced the word "soldier" with "warfighter"? Feel like I've seen it a lot lately and I'm not sure what the change implies
I assume someone thought it sounds cooler and will help them recruit. It's an awful term, although maybe it will make it slightly harder for people to claim that the US military is a force for good because "our warfighters are global peacekeepers". Really highlights the absurdity.