Leaderboard

GPS is a 'local' receiver of time/location information from the orbiting satellites. You might be able to 'swamp' the local receiver so that it can't detect the satellite signals, but a military system would use AWACS, software translation, and a secure digital link ( see NATO's Link 16, for example ), to transmit location information, and still get the job done. V Putin is lucky his 'enemies' are not like him. If someone wanted him dead, he would be.

How many more times ??? You've been told repeatedly over the last two weeks that your recollections of pre-WW2 science are wrong, yet you shrug off each instance and either move on to another inane subject, or double down on your previous claims. What is the point of letting you know what is wrong with what you are saying ? You only chose to ignore it. That is not discussion. That is an obstinate old fool, who believes he knows more than he actually does.

If anyone is still intersted its to do with wind stoppers for the Steppes https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/89817/fending-off-the-wind-on-the-steppe

Just heard the news that Michael Collins from Apollo 11 has died. He was 90 years old and will be remebered as being the "lonliest man in the world" orbiting the Moon while his two companions, the late Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin descended to the surface. Condolences to his family and friends.

Nobody 'jams' the satellite transmitter , although there have been attempts at lo-orbit satellite killing missiles. What you do is 'swamp' the local reciver with spurious noise, burying the signal. It is a simple matter for a trio of AWACS, at say 200 mi. distance, to pick up the satellite signal, do triangulation and transmit the modified ( and not quite as accurate ) signal to the networked, and securely linked, F-35, which then fires its missile, and V Putin is history.

Order and recommend have quite distinct meanings. Thank you admin for the Ignore function.

You are correct that the original author did not say so, but in discussions concerning light it is generally understood by the scientifically lieterate that referring to the speed of light as a constant, is a reference to its speed in a vacuum. There is precision of speech and then there is irrelevant, provocative pedantry. Edit: cross posted with @swansont

Long in this context is anything bigger than ~1 micron, i.e. non-ionizing.

Since you're introducing possible scenarios, consider the following. A small fast/agile aircraft carrier with a complement of 8-16 F-35s, possibly with AWACS radar coverage, and 'buddy' type re-fueling assets. The F-35 has an operational radius of about 500 km, which can be extended with buddy re-fueling, or even stealth-defeating external fuel tanks, such that 700 km is not an issue. The current US inventory anti-radar missile is the Raytheon AGM-88 HARM, which tracks enemy radar up to 150 km , back to its source. The only way to defeat, is to turn off your radar, but then you are blind, and cannot fire missiles at the carrier. The HARM's successor, HDAM, has a built in GPS and fiber-optic gyro, such that when the target is aquired, switching off the radar will not defeat the missile. Your only hope is to get out of there faster than a M5 missile can cover 150 km. No US aircraft has ever been lost to surface-to-air missiles when HAR|M has been flying cover/SEAD mission. The big if, which only larger Navies are able to provide, is network-centric warfare, or greatly improved situational awareness, provided by networking every electronic asset in the field, from AWACS, JSTARS and the parallelled radars of individual F-35s into the C3, command and control system. The systems have become the largest expenditure in modern warfare. Bombs, missiles, aircraft and even ships, are just the 'scalpels' in the modern operating theater; the systems and electronic assets are the surgeons.

Impactors in MIRVs are not allowed. The US suggested using them but Russia said no because there is no way to distinguish from a nuke and will be treated as a nuke. Rather, I should say, they can't be used under the 'conventional weapon' designation in an MIRV.

One of the best "I'm just a layman" type threads I've seen in a long while. All should be commended. ALine, you might enjoy having a look at the mathematical field of mechanics, specifically kinematics.

I'll clarify for him. For the reaction mass to produce an upward force on the rocket, it has to be accelerated downward relative to the rocket. In order to return that mass to the top of the rocket, any downward velocity the mass has relative to the rocket has to be stopped and reversed. This is an acceleration just as much as the one producing the upwards force on the rocket (acceleration is either change in speed, direction or both). This action will exert a force on the rocket opposite to that caused by accelerating the fuel downward. The end result of this force will be counter any upward movement by the rocket. This ends up with the net movement of the rocket as being zero. There is no way around this. There is no "clever" way to "fool" the rocket into having net movement by recirculating the fuel/reaction mass.

Excuse me ; these are stipulations that YOU are adding. The original author did not say so.