Why are American Cars so BIG?

[Matra et Alpine]

Im thinking it through logically. So a bunch of strangers with large ( they will need to be) r/c aircraft which by the nature of the fact they are packing heat will look strange and attract the attention of the gathered enthusiasts,

Well I was only suggesting it as possible and that they went when quiet - hey maybe the keep everyone hostage while they launch

go to a number of clubs

I said club launch sites. We've about 10 of them in a 20 mile radius of me
And that's 5 miles from one of Britains Nuclear submarine refit and dock facilities

...not a simple as you make it sound.

I'll accept over-simplifying but I've had to to try to shift opinion AWAY from the big weapon, complexity and control mind-set

I think there is a difference between drones and model aircraft. Bear in mind most model aircraft are not designed to carry explosives and are designed to be as light as possible.

I suggest you're thinking military drone - jsut as with the X aircraft already shown here.
That's lots of smarts and expense.
I'm talking dumb, one objective, NOT guaranteed 100% accurate or return but so cheap enough are launched it doens't matter.
'Most' model aircraft are definately light weight and meant for duration and ease of flight.
BUT, some clubs have a few large models and the technology is easily scalable.
for example the auto-gyro controls for helos can work for a 1' r/c or a 10' r/c it doens't make a difference

Again napalm is weighty. The amount you could deliver even in your scenario wold not cause that much of a problem.

Weight is not an issue, wing area provides lift and modern engines are powerful enough to counter the minimal additional drag.
Hence I'd suggested 1-2 gallons of liquid fuel.

How are they actually going to home in on a funnel ( which nuclear carriers dont have)

oops, where DO nuclear carriers vent heat ??

Given the ship is moving the targetting system would have to be far more sophisticated than a GPS.

I've assumed some form of simple final homing - magnetic or image are relatively easy.

Im lucky to fing freaking fish with them. These ships are equiped with blast doors to control fuel fires and other forms of attack. I cant see where afew gallons (if that much could be delivered ) would do much harm.Fire fighting systems on carriers are designed to control devastating fires. You also assume every one of these drones nails its target, Its a big call.

I tihnk I've covered the point about fire-superssion systems.
And a carrier is a HUGE target, unlike single 'expensive' munitions hundreds of drones don't have to hit the 'soft' part. They only have to provide enough continous 'flame' to ultimately breach the soft part.

Your drones would travel at what speed from what range ?

bolt wing to body ( or perhaps even flying wing ) and throguh or catapult. Not hard. i/c large sclae models are good for 80-100mph.
Latest jet engines are capable fo 250-300mph.
There's a sclae flying Vulcan with 4 jet engines all builsd in a guys shed. Seen video of it flyinf and it's impressive. A 'drone' wooulnd't be as well built ( doesn't need to be 'scale'

A carrier can travel at 40 knots. As I said the targetting of these thing would have to be at a GPS point. What other guidance method do you envisage a bunch of terrorists would be able to pack into their model aircraft given much of the payload will need to be set aside for the napalm or other low tech explosive.

Video recognitio of a carriier is trivial.
It really is 2nd year computing course stuff. Books are written on edge and shape detection. We're trying to decide it's a carrier, not trying to decide if it's a Abrahms tank or a Citroen car - which is the type of thing the military get hung up on
Payload is not a problem, we've always ended up seeing that smaller and LOTS of with smallish loads was better than fewer, bigger. So 20 drones deliverying 2 gallons is better chance of success at one drone delivering 40. One hit makes no difference to former and lots to later. So the smaller, more drones the better.

Dont forget the Phalanx systems will be filling the air with lead at these relatively slow targets. Some will get through so the fire fighters will be busy I suppose.

Missed the point.
The Phalanx fills the air for about 10 seconds and most of it in a straight line.
You can't just coundt bullets here

Here's a picture to conjure.
You walk near a beehive, 5,000 bees swarm to protect the hive.
Do you think you'll make it ?
Does it matter how many you can kill/stun with one swat ?
While you're focussed on the ones in your line of sight, what's happening behind you ?

Same probelm with current defensive solutions. They rely on a number of attacks from a limited numer of directions. More and they're swamped.

IIIR the max is 6 phalanx on a carrier. So assuming it can target small drones at low speed ( the phalanx fires AHEAD of the missile to let the target fly INTO the munition ) and it hits one, there are a few hundred/thousand more to go



Somalia was a clusterf# but the error was in not expecting a orchestrated response. Like Vietnam the US were restricted in what they could use. In the film they asked for an AC130 but were denied. I dont know how factual that was but they were unlikely to lay waste to the city where the people they were trying to defend lived. Hard call.[/QUOTE]

[SlickHolden]

That is a huge post wooooooo

the old clusterFU#k haven't seen that in years lol

[henk4]

I suggest we move the larger part of this thread to a new one named: Why are armies so big

[more-boost1555]

Heh, it wasn't top-secert, that's why the Americans could copy it to begin with.

As for that line about "running the Soviet economy into the ground" that's not true at all.

Prove it.

There was the collapse of the Soviet Union...how's that for proof?

It was called the cold war, and deterrent was the name of the game. Each side tried to scare the other out of attacking by having the most, latest and greatest weapons in all categories. Thus an arms race ensued, which led to many "space age" concepts like that Mig you're talking about. Eventually the Russians could no longer fund the development of their military might, though they desperately wanted to match U.S. power. This essentially drove them into bankruptcy.

Of course there were more factors than just a crumbling economy that led to the collapse. But that's not the point, the point is they could no longer fund the development of concepts such as the one you tote.

[NAZCA C2]

Why don't we all just get along! How about we declare an end to this post. I think some of us have strayed just a little bit off topic.

[mr bill]

Of course there were more factors than just a crumbling economy that led to the collapse. But that's not the point, the point is they could no longer fund the development of concepts such as the one you tote.

Next you're gonna say Regan ended the cold war- There was one thing responsible for the collapse of the cold war above all others, and that was Gorbechev.

The much lauded arms race meant almost nothing.

[Fleet 500]

"more-boost" is correct.
Gorby challenged Reagan. He said, "We're going to build our arms."
Reagan said, "Okay, you build up yours and we will build ours up even more." And the arms race began. In the end, of course, the Soviet Union could not keep up and within a few years collapsed. The Soviet Union spent itself into bankruptcy. Now, if another U.S. president was in office at the time (like Carter), history would have been much different.
Reagan had a large part in the breaking up of the Soviet Union.

[crisis]

"more-boost" is correct.
Gorby challenged Reagan. He said, "We're going to build our arms."
Reagan said, "Okay, you build up yours and we will build ours up even more." And the arms race began. In the end, of course, the Soviet Union could not keep up and within a few years collapsed. The Soviet Union spent itself into bankruptcy. Now, if another U.S. president was in office at the time (like Carter), history would have been much different.
Reagan had a large part in the breaking up of the Soviet Union.

I think the arms race was in progress when Ronny came into power. Corruption palyed a part in Russias downfall as well as the desire from many states to regain indepecdence. One thing a market economy does is make money where a socialist one struggles for economic prosperity.

[Matra et Alpine]

One thing a market economy does is make money where a socialist one struggles for economic prosperity.

Please don't confuse socialism and communism !!

[crisis]

Please don't confuse socialism and communism !!

THe fundamental ideals of state ownership is shared , if not practised.

[Matra et Alpine]

THe fundamental ideals of state ownership is shared , if not practised.

There is a BIG gap between them.
Socialism only considers the necessity for a provision of minimal standards in employment, housing, education and healthcare for ALL. Within the bounds of providing that socialist governments use a wide variety of methods to deliver. Some provide funds to be 'cashed' at any business, others provide the service under government control. There is no one-way to do socialism. Communism however, by virtue of it's tenets has only one way to act and hence fail

[Fleet 500]

I think the arms race was in progress when Ronny came into power. Corruption palyed a part in Russias downfall as well as the desire from many states to regain indepecdence. One thing a market economy does is make money where a socialist one struggles for economic prosperity.

No, Pres. Carter certainly did not build arms. Actually, he did the opposite- proposed many cuts. Reagan set out to rebuild the military at a pace unparalleled in U.S. peacetime history. He added army divisions and thousands of fighter aircraft for the airforce, and restored the navy to nearly 600 ships strong. He resurrected B-1 bomber plans which Jimmy Carter had canceled, and went forward with the production of Trident submarines and Stealth bombers.

The SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) was also another important strategy of Reagan. He was convinced that U.S. missile defenses would bankrupt the Soviet Union, and force it to abandon the struggle. The SDI program was aggressive, daring, and it scared the Soviets, who hadn't forgotten that America had fulfilled Pres. Kennedy's promise of a moon landing in less than a decade.

The Soviets understood that SDI would be the final nail in their coffin. As Gorbachev adviser Aleksandr Yakovlev admitted, "We understood that it was a new stage, a new turn in the armaments race." If Reagan's SDI program remained in place, he said, "we would have had to start our own program, which would be tremendously expensive and unneccessary. And this would bring further exhaustion of the country."

[henk4]

I think the arms race was in progress when Ronny came into power. Corruption palyed a part in Russias downfall as well as the desire from many states to regain indepecdence. One thing a market economy does is make money where a socialist one struggles for economic prosperity.

Those old enough to know will remember that during the eighties the oil prices went down (after the peak in 1979) by a 50% or more. As the Soviet Union was rather dependent on income from oil exports (larger at that time than Saudi Arabia) it stands the reason to assume that such an income reduction, in combination with these armament efforts, has siginifcantly contributed to the bankruptcy of the country.
Communism was brought down, but with it a high standard of education and medicare, which has all gone now and left to only those who can pay for it, and that are not many.

[crisis]

Communism was brought down, but with it a high standard of education and medicare, which has all gone now and left to only those who can pay for it, and that are not many.

Really, Did the USSR have a "high" standard of these or just the capability to cope with the majority of the populations needs. ( this is a honest question from an ignoramus not a sarcastic slieght).

[crisis]

Of course, that's exactly what carrier are for- Imperialism missions (Iraq being a prime example).

Is it not better to deter through intimidation than through conflict?