Originally posted by Merkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
That's sharing isn't it? lol!
Actually, the U.S. and U.K. share a lot of tech. The Joint Strike Fighter for example. Heck, BAE has a building right in Arlington. (That's where a lot of defense contractors are, it's as close to D.C. as you can get without being in D.C.)
seems to be some questions over the technology transfer from the US to the UK. Also, it appears to be overwhleming funded by the US anyway- hardly a joint effort!
Originally posted by wedgehead2Not so. There are a couple of pieces of British tech on that plane are critical. The nozzles for example are Royce if remember correctly. Also, the gripe about software transfer was mainly about source code for the software. Aircraft software and electronics hardware are a very tightly kept secret, when it's something this new, nobody lets it out easily. It's one of our best advantages. That issue is long settled now anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
seems to be some questions over the technology transfer from the US to the UK. Also, it appears to be overwhleming funded by the US anyway- hardly a joint effort!
BAE is one of the partners, do you honestly think they are involved in this project just for show? Besides that, Britain can buy these jets. Having a fleet of them does a pretty good job of transfering tech. China and Russia would kill for a couple of these, and that source code. Britain is getting more than their moneys worth in tech transfer.
Of course America is funding most of it. American companies were going to design Americas new fighter. A new fighter was going to be designed anyway, so it's not like it's costing us extra money to have other countries on board. It's the opposite, we save a few billion, and get the involvement of another very solid contractor. (BAE)
Just because the Britons aren't paying an equal share doesn't mean it's not a joint effort.
Originally posted by Merksurely you guys, with the levels of military spending you have could do this all yourself. It just seems to be us trying to get close to america militarily, which hasn't turned out great for us in recent foreign adventures.
Not so. There are a couple of pieces of British tech on that plane are critical. The nozzles for example are Royce if remember correctly. Also, the gripe about software transfer was mainly about source code for the software. Aircraft software and electronics hardware are a very tightly kept secret, when it's something this new, nobody lets it out easily. It's o ...[text shortened]... t because the Britons aren't paying an equal share doesn't mean it's not a joint effort.
Couldn't BAE get involved without british government intervention/ funding?
Originally posted by wedgehead2Sure we could have designed a fighter by ourselves and the U.K. could have built one too. Makes sense to consolidate though.
surely you guys, with the levels of military spending you have could do this all yourself. It just seems to be us trying to get close to america militarily, which hasn't turned out great for us in recent foreign adventures.
Couldn't BAE get involved without british government intervention/ funding?
Trust me. You would rather have the Lighting than the Typhoon. 😉
And no, BAE wouldn't have had a chance in hades at being a part of the JSW without British involvement. No way would the U.S. let bleeding edge tech get out to someone who isn't going to buy said tech.
Originally posted by MerkYeah, but Britain are also invesing in the Eurofighter as well. It just seems that it would make more sense to just focus on that project then spend money on a relationship building exercise with america.
Sure we could have designed a fighter by ourselves and the U.K. could have built one too. Makes sense to consolidate though.
Trust me. You would rather have the Lighting than the Typhoon. 😉
And no, BAE wouldn't have had a chance in hades at being a part of the JSW without British involvement. No way would the U.S. let bleeding edge tech get out to someone who isn't going to buy said tech.
I didn't realise that national company involvment was so closly linked with the countries involved. You learn something everyday... 😵
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere is a well known ratio in my field of Ion Implanters, they accelerate light and heavy ions to be a dopant into pure silicon wafers so the silicon conducts electrons, thus the term SEMI-conductor, I imagine you know all about that. Anyway a charged ion beam gets neuralized at 1 % per meter at 10 -5 microns of vacuum. Thats about 100 times the pressure we like to implant at, usually something like 1E-7 micron range. Now sometimes that is a useful function, causing self-focussing but we only have a couple three meters of beam length so it doesn't go very far. The problem with neutralization is you can't steer it if it's neutral, doesn't respond to electric or magnetic fields.
Cyclotron particle accelerators, linear particle accelerators, and synchroton particle acclerators can accelerate positively charged hydrogen ions until their velocity approaches the speed of light, and each individual ion has a kinetic energy of from 100 MeV to 1000 MeV or more. Then the resulting high energy protons can capture electrons from ele ...[text shortened]... ikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_beam_weapon
The atmosphere still seems to be a problem though.
If you have aimed it correctly I suppose it can make it to a target but I know for instance, we accelerate Arsenic ions to 200,000 volts (0.2 MEV) and at that voltage, it's only going about 100,000 MPH, so you need to accel them a heck of a lot higher voltage than that, so you can't use simple stacked ring accelerators that we use in ion implanters, they are just discs with holes in the center and held apart by good insulating material where one end is grounded and there are high voltage resisters in series and each one going to it's own ring which then gives about a 25 KEV boost in each ring. Imagine that multiplied by a thousand! Impossible. So you have to use some other method like RF or plasma induced acceleration but still you have to aim it somehow, physically, electrically, magnetically, whatever and then pretty much as soon as it hits the air the itshay hits the anfay.
Neutral or not. I don't think you can punch more than maybe a Km of air that way, I don't care if it accels to 100 GEV!
Light does not have any of those problems. It has its own set of constraints for sure, but getting through the atmoshere is not one of them, at least up to a point. At some point in the power curve, air itself will start to ionize and that will limit how deep you can penetrate into the air. All this stuff works better if everyone was decent enough to fight in space where they should anyway! keeps all the fighting away from the planet! Then you can use whatever you want, neutral beams, Lasers, Masers, X-ray lasers, etc.
1 edit
Originally posted by mrstabbyNot if you use hydrogen/oxygen rockets, the effluent is water.
But all getting all that spacecraft up there would contribute heavily to global warming...
And, suppose the entire world decides nuts to this fighting on earth, lets do it in space, so now whole new astro industries spring up and everybody now competes to get the best spacecraft, etc. New jobs open up, everyone notices, hey we are all getting richer on this. Lets sue for peace and then they stop and the cycle starts again.....
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseSpaceships are great ways to deal with suicide bombers!
Not if you use hydrogen/oxygen rockets, the effluent is water.
And, suppose the entire world decides nuts to this fighting on earth, lets do it in space, so now whole new astro industries spring up and everybody now competes to get the best spacecraft, etc. New jobs open up, everyone notices, hey we are all getting richer on this. Lets sue for peace and then they stop and the cycle starts again.....