doublejj
Well-Known Member
My philosophy is "Turn it into glass, or stay home & launch drones for effect"...see "Japan"
Donald Trump Leading The Republicans
- Thread starter Rrog
- Start date
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
For awhile I thought we were going to do something like what the Canadians had set up and someday I hope it goes that way in the USA.
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
How didn't it work, jerkwad?
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
Yes, we agree on that. Thanks for the clarification.Wonky attempt at humor not directed at you this time, TJ.
Eierlegende-wollmilchsau is a German term used to describe the do-everything person or product. I first heard the term from a German engineer deriding a product that tried to do so much that it can do nothing. I think the word is hilarious and it sounds great when spoken properly. The literal translation is: Egg laying wool bearing milk pig.
It describes the F35 quite well I think.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Head of a pig, body of a sheep, udders of a cow; 'all things for everyone'. Of course, no such creature exists.
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
Jerk wad lol nice ask your self how did the patriot missile work
Here nimwit have a read
that Patriot missiles destroyed only 9 percent of the Scuds they tried to engage. The Israeli Defense Force calculated they'd destroyed just 2 percent. William Cohen, Bill Clinton's secretary of defense, admitted upon leaving office in January 2001, "The Patriot didn't work."
Army officers weren't lying when making those earlier claims, but they were manipulating the fine print. A Patriot was counted as having made a successful "intercept" when it got within lethal range of the Scud and its fuse exploded. By this definition, a Patriot could "intercept" a Scud without necessarily destroying it. As early as July 1991, five months after the completion of Desert Storm, a congressionally mandated report by the Defense Department concluded that, while the Patriot "intercepted a high percentage" of Scuds, it sometimes failed to destroy the Scud's warhead and therefore "did not always prevent damage" to soldiers or civilians below.
The early boasts for the Patriot were also caused by misinterpretations. For example, in one reputedly successful intercept over Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, subsequent analysis revealed that the Patriot had broken a Scud into several large pieces, one of which hit an office building, killing one person and injuring scores more. On some occasions, the Patriot might have caused more harm than good. The night of Jan. 25, 1991, in Tel Aviv, three Patriots were fired into the air, fell back to earth, and exploded, two of them in residential areas. The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv reported at the time that one Israeli was killed, 44 were wounded, and 4,156 apartments were destroyed. The Army claimed at the time that the damage was caused by Scuds, which it said the Patriots missed. But an ABC cameraman had filmed the incidents. An Israeli defense spokesman acknowledged to an ABC reporter that the Patriots had caused the damage.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
Yo Bone head enough said
That incident and a few others like it led Ted Postol, an MIT weapons scientist, to testify before a congressional committee, "It is possible that if we had not attempted to defend against Scuds, the level of resulting damage would be no worse than actually occurred." Postol got into big trouble with the Raytheon Corp. and the Pentagon for making this statement. However, I reported at the time for the Boston Globe that, at a classified briefing shortly after Desert Storm at the Mitre Corp. in Bedford, Mass., three Raytheon engineers were asked by a roomful of weapons scientists whether the Patriot reduced the damage caused by Scuds. The engineers replied that they did not know. (My sources were two scientists at the meeting, neither of them Postol.)
All this said, it may well be that this time the PAC-3 did knock down four Iraqi missiles, as claimed. First, as is now well-known (and contrary to initial reports), the Iraqi missiles were not Scuds. They were other models of Soviet-built missiles that fly more slowly, at lower altitudes, and across a shorter range, than Scuds. Second, the new Patriot works in a very different way than the old Patriots.
With the old Patriot, known as PAC-2, a radar scanned the sky for missiles or airplanes. (By the way, this earlier model was designed to shoot down planes, not missiles. There is no reason to doubt the report that a Patriot accidentally shot down a British fighter jet.) If an object appeared in the sky, it reflected the radar signal, which bounced back. A computer identified the object and tracked its flight path. After this information was processed, a Patriot missile was launched. The Patriot was tipped with a large fragmentary warhead. When it reached a certain distance from the target, the warhead exploded, blowing up the target (or such was the hope) in the process. The PAC-3 utilizes a more precise, longer-range radar and faster data-processing systems. And the missile doesn't carry a warhead; rather, it is designed to slam into the target (this is why it's called an HTK, or "hit-to-kill," weapon). There are two major advantages to HTK, in theory. First, if the Patriot is fired mistakenly or wildly misses, it won't explode when it falls back to earth. Second, there is less room for fudging the definition of "intercept"—the term means that the Patriot actually hit the target. (Whether the target is destroyed, however, remains an issue.)
However, the evidence is mixed on whether the PAC-3 can actually perform this complex task. In "development tests," which are designed to see if the technology works on the most basic level, the new Patriot did very well, hitting 10 out of 11 targets. However, in "operational tests," which are supposed to simulate real combat, the missile did much less well, slamming into the target in fewer than half the engagements, due mainly to computer glitches. (These figures come from a knowledgeable Pentagon official, but see also this.)
Many times during Desert Storm, officials thought that a Scud was shot down by a Patriot, when in fact the Scud had simply broken up into small fragments or gone far astray. That may be what happened to some of the presumably downed missiles in this war, too. (All of them, like the Scuds, are Soviet-made missiles and are known to be neither very stable nor accurate.) Then again, maybe the new, improved Patriot hit them. If so, the hits would signify a dramatic technological advance. For now, though, I'm with the knowledgeable Pentagon official, who told me, "I'm going to wait till the facts are in."
That incident and a few others like it led Ted Postol, an MIT weapons scientist, to testify before a congressional committee, "It is possible that if we had not attempted to defend against Scuds, the level of resulting damage would be no worse than actually occurred." Postol got into big trouble with the Raytheon Corp. and the Pentagon for making this statement. However, I reported at the time for the Boston Globe that, at a classified briefing shortly after Desert Storm at the Mitre Corp. in Bedford, Mass., three Raytheon engineers were asked by a roomful of weapons scientists whether the Patriot reduced the damage caused by Scuds. The engineers replied that they did not know. (My sources were two scientists at the meeting, neither of them Postol.)
All this said, it may well be that this time the PAC-3 did knock down four Iraqi missiles, as claimed. First, as is now well-known (and contrary to initial reports), the Iraqi missiles were not Scuds. They were other models of Soviet-built missiles that fly more slowly, at lower altitudes, and across a shorter range, than Scuds. Second, the new Patriot works in a very different way than the old Patriots.
With the old Patriot, known as PAC-2, a radar scanned the sky for missiles or airplanes. (By the way, this earlier model was designed to shoot down planes, not missiles. There is no reason to doubt the report that a Patriot accidentally shot down a British fighter jet.) If an object appeared in the sky, it reflected the radar signal, which bounced back. A computer identified the object and tracked its flight path. After this information was processed, a Patriot missile was launched. The Patriot was tipped with a large fragmentary warhead. When it reached a certain distance from the target, the warhead exploded, blowing up the target (or such was the hope) in the process. The PAC-3 utilizes a more precise, longer-range radar and faster data-processing systems. And the missile doesn't carry a warhead; rather, it is designed to slam into the target (this is why it's called an HTK, or "hit-to-kill," weapon). There are two major advantages to HTK, in theory. First, if the Patriot is fired mistakenly or wildly misses, it won't explode when it falls back to earth. Second, there is less room for fudging the definition of "intercept"—the term means that the Patriot actually hit the target. (Whether the target is destroyed, however, remains an issue.)
However, the evidence is mixed on whether the PAC-3 can actually perform this complex task. In "development tests," which are designed to see if the technology works on the most basic level, the new Patriot did very well, hitting 10 out of 11 targets. However, in "operational tests," which are supposed to simulate real combat, the missile did much less well, slamming into the target in fewer than half the engagements, due mainly to computer glitches. (These figures come from a knowledgeable Pentagon official, but see also this.)
Many times during Desert Storm, officials thought that a Scud was shot down by a Patriot, when in fact the Scud had simply broken up into small fragments or gone far astray. That may be what happened to some of the presumably downed missiles in this war, too. (All of them, like the Scuds, are Soviet-made missiles and are known to be neither very stable nor accurate.) Then again, maybe the new, improved Patriot hit them. If so, the hits would signify a dramatic technological advance. For now, though, I'm with the knowledgeable Pentagon official, who told me, "I'm going to wait till the facts are in."
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I tried, but you got there first and best lolWonky attempt at humor not directed at you this time, TJ.
Eierlegende-wollmilchsau is a German term used to describe the do-everything person or product. I first heard the term from a German engineer deriding a product that tried to do so much that it can do nothing. I think the word is hilarious and it sounds great when spoken properly. The literal translation is: Egg laying wool bearing milk pig.
It describes the F35 quite well I think.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
yo bone head so i guess your to blame being your admitting to being in the software end
lol
http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/it/~alum/patriot_bug.html
lol
http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/it/~alum/patriot_bug.html
The_Herban_Legend
Well-Known Member
Were racists not permitted?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I think you are saying either go all in or stay out, which is exactly where my mind is at. I'd like to add that the reason for going all in should be very good and not the pack of lies were were given before the second war with Iraq.
Sending drones in just to make them bleed, whoever "they" are, well I can't go there. True, we don't put soldiers in harms way if we use a drone. But we lose any possible chance of making peace with the population in those areas when our drones kill innocents.
Unless we plan to convert it to glass as you suggest, we need to make peace with those people eventually. And, Exon would never authorize that kind of strike in the Middle East.
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
At that time they were, yes.
The_Herban_Legend
Well-Known Member
LOL! Nice.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
good intercept capabilities i am curious how it stacks up to the brahmos cruise missile can the patriot reach Mach 3 ??? i bet not even close maybe mach 2 if that 
shit the new brahmos cruise missile is going to be mach 6 with 100 percent bulls eye hits and something USA cannot stop
shit the new brahmos cruise missile is going to be mach 6 with 100 percent bulls eye hits and something USA cannot stop
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
I get a good one in every now and then...and I so need it for my self esteem.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
The_Herban_Legend
Well-Known Member
You are definitely witty. That had me laughing pretty good.I get a good one in every now and then...and I so need it for my self esteem.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Do you read what you post? It comes across as very disrespectful.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
thanks for quickly identifying yourself as a racist braindead moron!