Possible reason the A-10 is being dropped

The fighter interceptors were to be above the clouds in thin air. No rain. Fighters and all military are rated to take off in adverse weather. You can see the extreme with the hurricane hunters. Flying through a wall.

The first go that we gave away was anti-missile missile - pre "Star Wars" tag and before Regan .

The missile would fly in the region and explode itself - throwing its payload and itself at the incoming up in the apogee area where the arc is narrow. Have the incoming wipe themselves up. Then there were the lower defense missiles that were directed to each war head that had the characteristics of a real bomb not just shape and weight. All sorts of advanced radar work and physics out your ears on that. So the short fast (real fast) missiles would destruct them raining their trash in a small region of entry, but no 50 MT bomb boom.

It was neat to see the pictures of our Sea Air Rescue (flying boat) bombing with 5 pound flour sacs on the decks of Soviet subs filming operations. They could not say anything since they were in violation of treaty... Think sticky flour all over you with limited shower facilities.

Mart> >>> >>>

We used the campus water tower to range with. It was easy to get mechanical distance and later it was done using a laser.

On a dark night, without a moon, you could just see it on the tower with a small telescope or binoculars.

Love the burning bush.

We worked on a neutron gun. Spooky. But I learned how to protect oneself from a neutron explosion or beam.

Candle wax. Large thick blocks. Then the same in concrete.

I was using a machine in the same lab as our 'mad' and lovable scientist from Scotland. Fresh out PHD in the right field. And a voice we never heard in East Texas in the late 60's. And 5 years after I lived in the south pacific.

Mart>> >>

Yes, I've heard of it. I research historical mysteries. They've found the hole the bolide made on impact.

Tesla grossly underestimated the impedance and losses in what was then called the Heaviside Layer.

We know much more about it now that we can make accurate measurements.

I got my amateur radio license at Mitre, from a retiree who had been an early British radar boffin. He covered the properties of the ionosphere extensively, then told us which of the antennas out on the front lawn he had used to determine them.

You really are a sucker for simpleminded voodoo science. The reality is much more interesting if you can handle its mathematical complexity.

-jsw

Gee, what a nice way to put that, Jim!

I got up to algebra II and some trig in tech school, but the heavier stuff used in quantum/higher physics is beyond me.

Pseudoscience explanations intentionally spare the poorly educated from those confusing numbers, such as the temperature of combustion and the melting points of metals.

So, people are poorly educated until they have been taught these? Set Theory Group Theory Algebra (linear, abstract, etc.) Differential and integral calculus of a single variable Differential and integral calculus of several variables Ordinary differential equations Partial differential equations Real Analysis Complex Analysis Topology Discrete mathematics (combinatorics, graph theory, etc.) Number Theory Geometry (projective, differential, etc.) Probability theory Statistics (statistics is often taught as a discipline in its own right, rather than as part of a maths course).

You have a high bar, sir.

I never suggested that people should have my education, or that small subset of it, unless they intend to work in aerospace electronic R&D. I frequently post simplified explanations that don't require even introductory calculus.

This is an example of the mathematics of digital communications:

-jsw

Here is the patent for the "200 mpg carburetor", so you can build one and tell us how well it works:

"...there is no evidence that the patents were ever suppressed or that the rights were bought up by the oil industry, the motor industry or the government."

-jsw

We? Who the hell are you talking about "we". Radar was invented by a Scot (Robert Alexander Watson-Watt). Honestly, I don't even know if he ever eve n visited the United States. Radar like research was going on in several c ountries. The US was not a pioneer in this area.

The budget devoted toward this field was still practically nothing relative ly speaking.

Cell phones and cars were practically nothing budgetary-wise. And weaponiz ed versions of this stuff? Practically nothing.

A lot of it wasn't even pioneered in the USA. So maybe militaries of other nations had higher budgetary devotion, but certainly not here in the United States.

That's beside the point. The military has always devoted the lion's share of resources to other areas. Fighters, bombers, infantry, self-propelled armor, etc. Weaponized electrophysics got hardly any comparable financing.

I don't think you're right about that. The government has funded a lot of laser research. During Star Wars, it was a huge amount.

The understanding of laser physics took some time. If you look at the earlier books on lasers versus what it known today, it's startling. I'm having a heck of a time keeping up just with the industrial developments.

Research sometimes takes time and coming up with ideas more than just money.

:

e of resources to other areas. Fighters, bombers, infantry, self-propelled armor, etc. Weaponized electrophysics got hardly any comparable financing .

Hell. Ronald Reagan even ignored treaties with the Russians to limit stuff like cruise missiles. Though, House Speaker Tip O'Neill and the democrats were tougher on Star Wars related research than the republicans at that ti me, but still. Electromagnetic and laser research, development and product ion always get next to nothing in funding compared to stuff like F-15s, Stealth Bombers, A-10s and M-1 tanks and munitions.

Where do you get this information? Stories about new DARPA grants for laser research pop up in the technical literature every week. The big things now are the liquid laser weapons and high-power diode lasers.

Do you have some dollar amounts that back up what you're saying?

We? Who the hell are you talking about "we". Radar was invented by a Scot (Robert Alexander Watson-Watt). Honestly, I don't even know if he ever even visited the United States. Radar like research was going on in several countries. The US was not a pioneer in this area.

The budget devoted toward this field was still practically nothing relatively speaking.

Cell phones and cars were practically nothing budgetary-wise. And weaponized versions of this stuff? Practically nothing.

A lot of it wasn't even pioneered in the USA. So maybe militaries of other nations had higher budgetary devotion, but certainly not here in the United States.

=============

The Great War had ended all major wars, remember? We wouldn't be needing a military for more than minor police actions. Pacifists controlled Depression spending.

Actually it was Watson Watt's assistant Arnold Wilkins who invented, built and demonstrated the first British radar in February of 1935.

The US Navy beat them, although since radar was kept top secret by all of its nearly simultaneous inventors it wasn't known to be a race.

"In December 1934, the apparatus was used to detect a plane at a distance of one mile (1.6 km) flying up and down the Potomac. Although the detection range was small and the indications on the oscilloscope monitor were almost indistinct, it demonstrated the basic concept of a pulsed radar system. Based on this, Page, Taylor, and Young are usually credited with building and demonstrating the world's first true radar."

The British system transmitted a continuous wave and inferred direction to the target by measuring the return's phase difference at two antennas, the same way our ears tell the direction but not distance of a sound source. A second receiver and antenna pair elsewhere gave an intersecting vector and crude estimate of range. The Germans investigated it and concluded it was something other than a radar, since it didn't work like theirs.

"...the British disclosed the technical details of the Chain Home early warning radar stations. The British thought the Americans did not have anything like this, but found it was virtually identical to the US Navy's longwave CXAM radar."

The British didn't invent computers all by themselves either.

At Mitre I had a working replica of a ~1932 German microwave aircraft detection radar on my desk. I haven't found any mention of it online.

US jet engine development began earlier than is generally known, too:

"Price started work on his own turbojet design in 1938,..."

-jsw

Hell. Ronald Reagan even ignored treaties with the Russians to limit stuff like cruise missiles. Though, House Speaker Tip O'Neill and the democrats were tougher on Star Wars related research than the republicans at that time, but still. Electromagnetic and laser research, development and production always get next to nothing in funding compared to stuff like F-15s, Stealth Bombers, A-10s and M-1 tanks and munitions.

============================

It got all the funding its promise justified at the time. Sufficiently powerful ruggedized miniature computers needed to control it weren't available back then, and what was available took a very long time to qualify to the necessary reliability and extreme environmental conditions military gear experiences, like hanging quietly from a wing at -60 in the stratosphere, then suddenly being temperature-shocked between a burning rocket motor and the friction-heated outer casing.

The RCA CDP1802 microprocessor from 1976 is still available because it -did- qualify for the extreme conditions in space.

"It is currently being manufactured by Intersil Corporation as a high-reliability microprocessor."

-jsw

Well, yes. Are you arguing that the military should devote the bulk of their research on some "pie-in-the-sky" scheme that no one knows if it will ever prove practical?

Or something like a Tank, that has proved an asset on the battlefield days for the past hundred years?

Well, of course. Or do you feel that the bulk of the funds should be spent on some "pie in the sky" scheme that may never prove possible?

Or something like a tank, that has proved an asset on the battlefield for the past 100 years?

And years afterwards as well. Money money and more money. A lot of good information has been generated however so some of it is worth the cost. Always like that.

Mart> >>> >>>