Superjet technology nears reality after Australia test

May 18, 2016
A joint US-Australian military research team is running a series of 10 trials at the world's largest land testing range, Woomera in South Australia, developing the scramjet, a supersonic combustion engine

A two-hour flight from Sydney to London is a step closer to reality after the latest successful test Wednesday of hypersonic technology in the Australian desert.

A joint US-Australian military research team is running a series of 10 trials at the world's largest land testing range, Woomera in South Australia, and at Norway's Andoya Rocket Range.

"It is a game-changing technology... and could revolutionise global air travel, providing cost-effective access to space," Australia's chief scientist Alex Zelinsky said in a statement.

Scientists have said could cut travelling time from Sydney to London to as little as two hours for the 17,000-kilometre (10,560-mile) flight.

Hypersonic involves travelling at more than five times the speed of sound (Mach 5).

Scientists involved in the programme—called Hypersonic International Flight Research Experimentation (HIFiRE)—are developing an that can fly at Mach 7, Michael Smart of the University of Queensland told AFP.

"It's an exciting time... we want to be able to fly with a hypersonic engine at Mach 7," said Smart, a hypersonics expert involved in the programme which also includes US aerospace giant Boeing and German space agency DLR.

He added that the scramjet was a supersonic combustion engine that uses oxygen from the atmosphere for combustion of its fuel, making it lighter and faster than fuel-carrying rockets.

"The practical application of that is you could fly long distances over the Earth very, very quickly but also that it's very useful as an alternative to a for putting satellites into space," Smart said.

The experimental rocket in the trial on Wednesday reached an altitude of 278 kilometres and a target speed of Mach 7.5, Australia's defence department said.

Each builds on previous ones, with the latest used to measure heat on the outside of a vehicle in , Smart said.

The next test, scheduled for 2017, would involve the scramjet engine separating from the rocket booster and flying on its own, he added.

The first test was conducted in 2009 with the project expected to be completed in 2018.

Explore further: Scientists test superjet technology in Australia

Related Stories

Air Force scientists are working on hypersonic air vehicle

June 7, 2015

Engineers said the US Air Force is getting closer to testing a hypersonic weapon. They are developing a hypersonic weapon based on an experimental scramjet program. What is a scramjet? NASA said in a "scramjet," or Supersonic ...

Experimental Scramjet aircraft set for test flight

March 23, 2011

The X-51A Waverider hypersonic scramjet project is set for its second test flight today, and the U.S. Air Force hopes it will demonstrate technology that can eventually be used for more efficient transport of payloads into ...

Recommended for you

167 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

unrealone1
1 / 5 (9) May 18, 2016
China has all ready done it.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (18) May 18, 2016
Oookay...according to wikipedia HiFire is:
"Hypersonic International Flight Research and Experimentation (HIFiRE) is a joint program of the US Department of Defense and Australian Defence Science and Technology Organization. "

Now, that doesn't sound like they are interested in air travel applications to me.

I call PR-BS on this article.
billpress11
3 / 5 (14) May 18, 2016
Quote from article: "Scientists have said hypersonic technology could cut travelling time from Sydney to London to as little as two hours for the 17,000-kilometre (19,540-mile) flight."

Besides the fact that there is a mistake in the kilometer- mile ratio wouldn't it be quicker to simply fly the opposite shorter direction?

Guy_Underbridge
3.4 / 5 (18) May 18, 2016
Now, that doesn't sound like they are interested in air travel applications to me.
Maybe useful if Sydney-London relations go south?
gkam
1.4 / 5 (19) May 18, 2016
Man has only gone hypersonic a few times. If you want to read of the last time go here:
https://tacairnet...ht-ever/

I was a aircraft communications goober there at the time and got excited at being involved in X-15 launches, but this one happened after I left.

We probably will not be doing this soon.

gkam
1.6 / 5 (19) May 18, 2016
Nobody talks about the very first time man went hypersonic. If you are interested in it I'll send it to you. It is very different from the record-setter referenced above.
Steelwolf
1.6 / 5 (13) May 18, 2016
@ gkam: Yeah, they had a whole lot of fun when they found out in those Supersonic flights (well before Hypersonic) that when they tried using their controls that they were getting the reverse of the expected action. They came to find that in those high-speed regimes that the airflow was very much different and that the vacuum produced in the turbulence from the induced vortices was more than the pressure on the forward facing surfaces. So, instead of putting the rudder right to turn right, the rudder kicking the tail to the left, the vacuum behind the rudder was pulling it to the Right making it go Left instead. It took them a whole lot of head scratching and chalkboard work to figure that one out being as counter-intuitive as it was. Now control is by little grid patches that come out from the fuselage to Pull it about as needed and active maneuvering, which depends on little attitude thrusters.
Steelwolf
1.6 / 5 (13) May 18, 2016
@ gkam: Yeah, they had a whole lot of fun when they found out in those Supersonic flights (well before Hypersonic) that when they tried using their controls that they were getting the reverse of the expected action. They came to find that in those high-speed regimes that the airflow was very much different and that the vacuum produced in the turbulence from the induced vortices was more than the pressure on the forward facing surfaces. So, instead of putting the rudder right to turn right, the rudder kicking the tail to the left, the vacuum behind the rudder was pulling it to the Right making it go Left instead. It took them a whole lot of head scratching and chalkboard work to figure that one out being as counter-intuitive as it was. Now control is by little grid patches that come out from the fuselage to Pull it about as needed and active maneuvering, which depends on little attitude thrusters.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (19) May 18, 2016
steelie, they used to have Mach Transducers to do appropriate adjustments, back in the mid to late 1960s when I worked the flightline at Edwards AFB.

We had rocket-equipped NF-104s at Test Pilot School to train the Apollo Astronauts. Equipped with attitude thrusters, they could go above the effective atmosphere and teach the astronauts to control position with the thrusters. Neat stuff.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (22) May 18, 2016
Nobody talks about the very first time man went hypersonic. If you are interested in it I'll send it to you. It is very different from the record-setter referenced above.
George kamburoff means he'll send you links to other websites wherein he brags about all the important things he never did and important roles he never filled, and important facts he never learned.

Like he does here.

He will also tell you all the important positions he held. But he wont tell you that he lost all the ones he lied about his qualifications in order to get.

No, we had to find out all that for ourselves.

George kamburoff. Confirmed liar, cheater, fact fabricator. And most obviously, psychopath.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (19) May 18, 2016
Can any of you Brits find a suitable barrister or whatever for me to hire to go after PO and otto?

I am serious.
Tenstats
3.5 / 5 (8) May 18, 2016
Who believes oxygen is a fuel as stated in the discussion. Fuel is carried and atmospheric oxygen is the oxidizer.
Estevan57
3.9 / 5 (19) May 18, 2016
Gkam, use the Google you stupid shit. Crying about others is easy, but leaving is so hard?
Are you mad because Otto calls you crazy? Or that he exposes you as a vacuous blowhard?

https://en.wikipe...nd_Wales

Do it, send pictures, be a real man.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (17) May 18, 2016
I just find it humorous that they are doing hyperjet experiments with what looks like - a rocket shape vehicle...
Estevan57
4.1 / 5 (18) May 18, 2016
I agree, WG, and anti. I wouldn't want to share an armrest with a payload on my next hypersonic flight...

I wonder if it would violate SALT II agreements? It's not a ballistic missile, but perhaps it "could fly long distances over the Earth very, very quickly".

Just what everyone needs, another ****** weapon.
Da Schneib
4.9 / 5 (19) May 18, 2016
This article is factually incorrect:

He added that the scramjet was a supersonic combustion engine that uses oxygen from the atmosphere for fuel, making it lighter and faster than fuel-carrying rockets.
This is totally incorrect; it uses oxygen from the atmosphere for oxidizer, meaning that it only has to carry fuel like any jet aircraft, and unlike rockets which must carry both fuel and oxidizer. Obviously if you don't have to carry oxidizer you start out with a lower pad weight, and that means you can also start out with less fuel, which further reduces the pad weight.

What's being talked about here is using scramjets for the lower stages, possibly only the first stage, of space launch vehicles. And yes, it's more efficient, and yes, it uses *less* fuel; but it doesn't use *no* fuel.

I'll be reporting this to the editors.
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (19) May 18, 2016
Worth mentioning:

The difference between a regular ramjet and a scramjet is that the airflow inside the engine is subsonic in a ramjet, even when flying at supersonic speeds, whereas the airflow in a scramjet is supersonic throughout the engine. This allows greater efficiency than a ramjet. The disadvantage is that the scramjet must be boosted to supersonic speeds before it can be ignited. Part of what's being done in this experiment is using a variable-geometry ram/scramjet that can operate in both the subsonic and supersonic regimes; but no matter what, since it doesn't have a turbine or a compressor, this must be accelerated to ignition speed for the ramjet configuration using rockets. What they're doing is making the ignition speed as low as possible, and enabling the transition from subsonic to supersonic operation.

Incidentally, "scramjet" means "supersonic combustion ramjet."
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (17) May 18, 2016
As far as turning this into a commercial aircraft engine, first and foremost it has to be able to take off from a runway which no ramjet can do, far less a scramjet. This is a design for an orbital lift vehicle, not a commercial jet.

Kudos to @antialias, @Whyde, and @Estevan for sussing this; and kudos also to @Tenstats for spotting the same oxidizer/fuel discrepancy I did when reading the article. I'd've credited @Tenstats earlier but I was only reacting to the article and hadn't read the comments yet.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (18) May 18, 2016
The first Scramjet was the Supersonic Cruise Attack Missile as envisioned and written up in 1966, in Aviation Week, I think. At the time, we were trying to to get the X-15 into hypersonic regions of the flight envelope.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (21) May 19, 2016
The first Scramjet was the Supersonic Cruise Attack Missile as envisioned and written up in 1966, in Aviation Week, I think. At the time, we were trying to to get the X-15 into hypersonic regions of the flight envelope.

George, assuming you were referencing your own possible connection to the x15 project, why do you feel the need to insert yourself into the importance of an article?
It ain't healthy...
gkam
1.4 / 5 (18) May 19, 2016
My connection was tenuous, being only a communications tech. It was so you could ask questions. But different ones, such as how they worked, who did it, what it was like, that kind of real stuff. Since you do not know me, it ain't bragging.

But it is part of history. If you were there, I would expect you to tell us about it.

Osiris1
1.4 / 5 (5) May 19, 2016
Just stick the scramjet on the body of the SR-71. Two of them, one on each side of the fuselage inboard of the regular jets that drive it now. Keep the regular jets as they can get the Blackbird up to ignition speed.....thing becomes like the jets in StarGate make by the Go'auld. The srams need to be closer to the centreline of the fuselage in for better thrust transfer and lower yaw moment in case of imbalance between the engines. Who knows, maybe the services already did it. Call it the SR-91 or something. Thing ought to go like a raped striped assed ape.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (18) May 19, 2016
You are partly correct. They did carry another vehicle on top of the Blackbirds. They had some trouble with it, and perhaps a fatality. But not all Blackbirds were SR-71s. We had all three variants at Edwards AFB, the A-12, the YF-12A,and the SR-71. The YF was actually faster than the SR.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) May 19, 2016
Just stick the scramjet on the body of the SR-71. Two of them, one on each side of the fuselage inboard of the regular jets that drive it now. Keep the regular jets as they can get the Blackbird up to ignition speed....

Hmm...it seems that having played with LEGOs as a kid does not confer engineering skills.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (18) May 19, 2016
The engines of the Blackbirds became ramjets, converted in flight.

Check 'em out.

They were started with Buick Wildcat engines with racing kits at first, then they used big Cadillac engines on the Start Cart, which was pulled under the jets ,with a driveshaft up into the engine. The engine on the Start Cart would scream before the jet ignited.
gkam
1 / 5 (16) May 19, 2016
Oh, bad marks for my last two posts. Does someone have the nerve to correct my post, or will they just slink away?
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (16) May 19, 2016
I usually don't bother, Gracie, but I'll point out a couple things you don't appear to have understood:

1. The SR-71 used turbojets; above about Mach 3 they used bypassed air that had not gone through most of the compressor stages to generate all of the thrust, in the afterburners, not in the subsonic combustion chamber of the turbojets, essentially turning their engines into ramjets. In this mode the compressors and turbines were drag items, and the power was provided only by the afterburners. Due to the subsonic air entering from the turbojet stage, these were not true scramjets.

2. The turbojets were not able to ignite below 3,200 RPM; the start carts (and later, a pneumatic start system) spun the engines up to this rate to allow ignition. This has nothing to do with ramjets or scramjets, which do not have active compressors or turbines to drive them.

And BTW don't whine when someone downvotes you for posting BS. It's unseemly.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (17) May 19, 2016
Really? Seen one? Heard one? Dodged one?

The compressors were bypassed for the ramjet function.

And what is with the Gracie nonsense? Are you another otto? Fifteen years old?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (17) May 19, 2016
Oh, maybe you can describe the differences between the different variants of Blackbird.

Without looking it up.

And I caught two Blackbirds between hangars in an old Google Earth snap long after they were supposed to be flying. How could I tell which ones they were?

Gee, I am really sorry I was stationed where we had them. I hope you do not resent it. It is bad form.
TechnoCreed
4.5 / 5 (17) May 19, 2016
@gkam
Really? Seen one? Heard one? Dodged one?

What is your problem exactly? The Forest Gump syndrome? ( Or should I say the Forest Gkump syndrome! )... I was there so I know everything about it...

Gee! You were a teenager then. If you are stupid at 71, I can imagine how much more stupid you were as a teen.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (17) May 19, 2016
Gee, I was a 22-year old electronics tech working on almost all the aircraft on the flightline. It was exciting stuff. Sorry if I was not bored.

No other flightline on Earth was as diversified as ours, because nobody else had our experimental and prototype aircraft. What is it with your ego problem, that you take offense when somebody goes to tell you what it was like then and there when the fastest aircraft ever built and flown were flying?
Estevan57
3.7 / 5 (18) May 19, 2016
gkam, noone gives a damn about you or your experience. Shut up already.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (15) May 19, 2016
Really? Seen one? Heard one? Dodged one?

The compressors were bypassed for the ramjet function.

And what is with the Gracie nonsense? Are you another otto? Fifteen years old?

Even you should remember George Burns show...
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) May 19, 2016
The compressors were bypassed for the ramjet function.
Not completely; the air still went through the first stage. Which is exactly what I said.

Read better, Gracie.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (18) May 19, 2016
Okay, Da S, your looking it up is better than my memories of my experiences. That is, when you create something about which to differ.

I was going to explain the differences between variants so you could tell, but Estevan ruined it for you.

I think if you folk had lived real lives instead of reading about and resenting the lives and works of others, you would not be hiding from the Real World here online.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (14) May 19, 2016
Oh, maybe you can describe the differences between the different variants of Blackbird.
Yep. There was one SR-71B trainer, and there were the two M-21s, and there were the three YF-12As. The SR-71s had a single pilot; the YF-12As had a two-seat cockpit. Then there was "The Bastard," the only SR-71C, built from the remains of the first YF-12 and a static simulation module, so-named for its nasty tendency to yaw in flight.

The M-21 was built to carry the D-21 autonomous drone and provided with a compartment for a second crewman who controlled the launch of the drone; this was abandoned when an M-21 was downed in a midair collision with the D-21 it had just attempted to launch.

I have personally seen and photographed the remaining M-21, on display in Seattle.

The YF-12 was an Air Force variant that was supposed to be an interceptor; the program was canceled after the first 3 were built.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) May 19, 2016
Okay, Da S, your looking it up is better than my memories of my experiences.
Actually I only had to look up the exact number built of each variant. I already knew about the YF-12As and the M-21 and D-21, and The Bastard; I didn't know there was a B trainer.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) May 19, 2016
Oh, and there were also 15 A-12s, which had only a single crewman, the pilot; the RSO spot on the SR-71 was instead taken up by the "Q-bay," containing most of the reconnaissance gear. The M-21s were actually A-12 variants, not SR-71 variants. I knew that once but had forgotten it.
Nik_2213
4.2 / 5 (5) May 19, 2016
Air-breathing rocket ? Zero-velocity start ? Multi-mode engine ? Ask the Brits...
http://www.reacti...s.co.uk/
gkam
1 / 5 (16) May 19, 2016
You should have been there to experience them. But your book report was good.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (14) May 19, 2016
your book report was good
You mean other than the part where I went and saw one.

See, this is why I have you on ignore, and why you get so many 1s from other people. You've constantly got to try to prove you have it, which in fact proves you don't. You can't relax; you've always got to be better than whoever you're talking to. It's an irritating trait in a 12-year-old; in someone obviously an adult, it's a show-stopper.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (14) May 19, 2016
Air-breathing rocket ? Zero-velocity start ? Multi-mode engine ? Ask the Brits...
http://www.reacti...s.co.uk/
Unfortunately it's still using subsonic air inside the engine, which is why it's limited to Mach 5. After that it transitions to rocket operation, and stops breathing air and starts consuming oxidizer, and the efficiency is reduced dramatically.

Cute but a toy technology compared to a scramjet.
gkam
1 / 5 (16) May 20, 2016
Love them book reports. Did you read about the green flame?

I do not know why you decided to be part of the good old boy troll group with otto and Rumpy and Ira, but it brings out the nasty in you, . . . and probably the real you. I am sure you folk do not do this in the Frog's forum.

Why are you angry that someone has actually worked around these birds and talked to the pilots and grew familiar with them?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (16) May 20, 2016
I do not know why the Blackbirds are so interesting here, the Valkyries were much more exciting to me. We had both, Air Vehicles One and Two. Only a Blackbird could catch them, and they were huge. When they opened up the six afterburning turbojets the low-frequency noise made it a personal experience, . . from the inside out.
TechnoCreed
4.9 / 5 (14) May 20, 2016
@Da Schneib
Cute but a toy technology compared to a scramjet.

Boy! That is a very sad comment. Don't you know that the SABRE engine is still only a conceptual idea? It has been the work of a single man who developed technical solutions to make this technology possible and you should take a second look at it. The BBC found the man and its idea interesting enough to make a documentary on it. https://www.youtu...a21fPkYM

As for the full working technology, it seems that it is the American military industry that is going to develop it. Let's hope that, some day, it is going to find its way in civil aeronautics. http://www.space....cle.html , http://www.reacti...ase.html

As for the scramjet, it is technologically impossible to get to mach 25 with it. So forget orbital flight with it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (11) May 20, 2016
Oh, Sabre is an interesting idea, and it should work. But it's still a subsonic engine. It wastes a lot of energy by requiring cooling of the intake air. A scramjet keeps most of the heat in the air, adding more in the combustion chamber.

Also, once the Sabre engine hits Mach 5, it's essentially done; you have to switch to rocket mode, and for that you have to carry oxidizer. The scramjet can take it higher, saving more oxidizer weight and also using its fuel more efficiently in the first place because it doesn't waste as much heat.

I'd evaluate the Sabre as a good technology for low-to-medium hypersonic transport; but a scramjet will take it a fair bit higher, and is a more likely step towards a true runway-to-orbit vehicle than the Sabre. You'll still have to switch over to rocket mode, but later, and having burned less fuel to get to that point than the Sabre would, with all the advantages of lift-off weight that implies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (17) May 20, 2016
The first Scramjet was the Supersonic Cruise Attack Missile as envisioned and written up in 1966, in Aviation Week, I think. At the time, we were trying to to get the X-15 into hypersonic regions of the flight envelope.

George, assuming you were referencing your own possible connection to the x15 project, why do you feel the need to insert yourself into the importance of an article?
It ain't healthy...
Well because as a psychopath he's a compulsive braggart.

Note how all his posts are about him or about OT things he thinks he knows.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (11) May 20, 2016
Oh, and one other advantage of the Sabre: it's capable of operation straight off the runway, which so far scramjets are not. I strongly suspect our first hypersonic transports are going to use the Sabre or something like that rather than scramjets, but I expect scramjets will be used more for the initial stages of ground-to-orbit lifting.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (11) May 20, 2016
@Da Schneib
I Think that you do not fully grasp the concept; the idea behind the cooling system.

In a scramjet the air gets very hot because of friction. The hotter the air, the less compressible it becomes. If you could keep this air cooler you could generate a lot more power because you would be able to feed more propellant. This, because you would have a lot more oxidizer in the same volume.

The SABRE is not a jet engine, it is a rocket engine and it allows you to fly from the strip to earth orbit with this same engine. Being a rocket engine, it also has the brute force and acceleration that goes with it. That is where the very efficient cooling system comes into action; as the air is cooled at around 120 Kelvin it gets easier to compress the staggering amount of air needed to feed a powerful rocket engine. It is impossible to have more thrust than your capacity to feed the propellant https://www.youtu...T7MUULZQ
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (11) May 20, 2016
@Da Schneib
I Think that you do not fully grasp the concept; the idea behind the cooling system.
I think I do. Let's see how well you develop your ideas:

In a scramjet the air gets very hot because of friction.
Errrr,

PV = nRT

The hotter the air, the less compressible it becomes.
Ummmwut? Is this some sort of new physics?

If you could keep this air cooler you could generate a lot more power because you would be able to feed more propellant.
More power than you spent cooling the air? This sounds like perpetual motion.

This, because you would have a lot more oxidizer in the same volume.
Again, ummmwut?

I'm gonna stop here. That's four impossibilities in a row.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (11) May 20, 2016
[contd]
First, you don't know the Ideal Gas Law. Second you claim a new principle of "non-compressibility" without giving any evidence to support it. Third you claim to be able to cool air without doing any work. Fourth you claim that the amount of oxygen changes with the amount of heat in the air, apparently violating mass-energy conservation.

Do let's try to stick to known physics, shall we?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (11) May 20, 2016
One last, major point: rockets are not air-breathing. If you are using air for the oxidizer, this is not a rocket engine; it is a jet engine. As soon as you start using the Sabre in rocket mode, you are no longer using air for the oxidizer.

The entire point of the engine in the first place is that you can use it off the runway as a jet engine all the way up to Mach 5+, then convert to rocket power with minimal change in configuration. It's a great idea, but it will have to carry more oxidizer than a scramjet because the scramjet can get to Mach 7 or Mach 8, and it also will not be as efficient as the scramjet; this means it will have to carry more fuel than the scramjet to make up for the loss of efficiency, plus more oxidizer than the scramjet because it must go to rocket mode earlier, plus yet again more fuel to boost the additional oxidizer.

The Sabre's big advantage is it doesn't have to be accelerated by some other means to the ignition speed of the scramjet.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (11) May 20, 2016
[contd]
As a final point, the cooling of the air is dependent upon two things:
1. The air in the engine must be subsonic to give enough time and turbulence to cool the air much, and
2. A heat exchanger can only be as efficient as the temperature of its coolant, minus inefficiencies for pumping the coolant through the heat exchanger.

In the scramjet, heating of the air by friction at the intake, and further heating due to compression, are both added directly to heating of the air by the burning fuel, and much of this heat makes it out the back of the engine, thus increasing the efficiency by using all of the available heat to add thrust. This is one way the scramjet is more efficient.

The second way it's more efficient is that the air is supersonic all the way through the engine, which means less frictional heating in the first place, as well as less drag.

That's a total of four ways the scramjet is more efficient than the Sabre.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (11) May 20, 2016
Worthy of note, theoretically scramjets can operate up to Mach 15.

Personally I think some combination of a scramjet and a rocket will be what we will eventually wind up with; the rocket at lower power will provide initial runway takeoff up to scramjet ignition speed somewhere between Mach 1 and Mach 2, then the scramjet will take the vehicle to Mach 10+ saving fuel and oxidizer, and finally the rocket will take over again to complete orbital insertion. But we'll have to see; the Sabre is also pretty promising. Ultimately it will come down to fuel consumed per kilogram to orbit, and to reliability.

I suspect the Sabre will be more practical for hypersonic transport even though it is limited in jet mode to Mach 5 or so.
Estevan57
3.9 / 5 (18) May 20, 2016
I sincerely apologize to Da Schneib for ruining his day by denying him the fantastic experience of gkams' explanation of SR71 variants.

As further proof of my cruelty I will post where My son is taking me for Fathers Day.

https://www.everg...3983--80

Actually I find the B-17, Spruce Goose, and WWII planes more interesting.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (12) May 21, 2016
I liked the P-38, the P-51, the M-21, and the WWI fighters and their exhibit the best at the Seattle Museum of Flight. I also like the Red Barn exhibit; both my grandmother and my father worked for Boeing at various times.

I've been to the Sinsheim Auto-Teknik Museum, and saw the Blue Flame, among a great deal of other stuff. They didn't have the Concorde or the Tupolev then.

And of course I spent two glorious days at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum; far too much to list.

That looks like a pretty good Father's Day! Enjoy yourself, Estevan.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (12) May 21, 2016
Aie!

@Da Shneib
You served me quite a lunch. What do you think I am? A pig?

Ok I am going to have a little nibble at this... But don't expect me to honor your full serving.

Let's see what's edible in those excessively generous plates.

tbc
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (11) May 21, 2016
...

I Think that you do not fully grasp the concept; the idea behind the cooling system.

This comment of mine was an invitation to dig further. It is not possible to have all the information on the concept but there is plenty to find about it.

Ummmwut? Is this some sort of new physics?

This one of yours is definitely a cocky attempt to insult me. If you throw this kind of blade at me it is alright, I am going to use it back to mince some parts of the main course.

tbc
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (11) May 21, 2016
...

One last, major point: rockets are not air-breathing. If you are using air for the oxidizer, this is not a rocket engine; it is a jet engine. As soon as you start using the Sabre in rocket mode, you are no longer using air for the oxidizer...


Sometime I like tasting the icing on the cake. Even before the main course.

Jet engines and rocket engines are two very different beasts and one will not turn into the other no matter how hard you wish them to.

SABRE stands for Synergetic Air Breathing Rocket Engine

So yes, this one is an air breathing rocket engine. Or at least will be... Because, as I said it is not working technology, it is a concept. It is still mostly on the drawing board.

tbc
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (11) May 21, 2016
...

Errrr,

PV = nRT
The hotter the air, the less compressible it becomes.


This is high school stuff... dunno, am I getting to old?
Don't worry about me I am just 55; my memory is working quite well. But I admit that this line was badly formulated. Allow me to rephrase: Hot air is harder to compress.
As you seem to have doubts about that, I will explain (with some people it is like that, they understand fast but you got to explain longer). Sorry but this part, I am going to shove it right back in your face. n = PV/RT for a given pressure and volume what do you think would happen if you would lower the temperature? How does it affect the molar density? What is the ultimate state of compressed air? How can you put more oxidizer in a smaller volume? Do you fucking get it now?

tbc
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (11) May 21, 2016
...

That is it, I am full, sorry for the left over and I don't need a doggy bag. I spent enough time here for today.

I never made any claim about myself and never will. My comments stand very well by themselves. On this, I would strongly suggest to you, for the next time that you question my comments, that you make due diligence beforehand. And maybe then, ask for clarifications. I am here to enjoy myself and help others ( if possible ) when I have some time to spare.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (15) May 21, 2016
I liked the P-38, the P-51, the M-21, and the WWI fighters and their exhibit the best at the Seattle Museum of Flight. I also like the Red Barn exhibit; both my grandmother and my father worked for Boeing at various times.

I've been to the Sinsheim Auto-Teknik Museum, and saw the Blue Flame, among a great deal of other stuff. They didn't have the Concorde or the Tupolev then.

And of course I spent two glorious days at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum; far too much to list.

That looks like a pretty good Father's Day! Enjoy yourself, Estevan.
You should try the Air Zoo in Kalamazoo. They have 'the only SR-71B Blackbird left in the world!' although its poorly lighted.
http://www.airzoo...e_id=192
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (10) May 21, 2016
You forgot two essential points:

1. The scramjet is more efficient in oxidizer because it operates in air-breathing mode over a larger range of speeds, mostly faster (Mach 15, in theory, vs. Mach 5 for the SABRE).
2. The scramjet is more efficient in fuel because it doesn't waste heat by cooling the airflow.

The idea is to carry more payload, not more fuel and oxidizer. Just sayin'.

I suppose I could explain thermodynamics and why it's inefficient to waste heat in a heat engine, not to mention some other egregious errors, but I don't see a lot of point. This just looks like a slangfest. Next time don't tell me I "do not grasp the concept" if you don't want to get some of the same back.

All of that said, I think the Sabre has a bright future in hypersonic flight, most likely; but as I said, most likely, it will not be the best answer for orbital insertion.
gkam
1 / 5 (14) May 22, 2016
I think only one SR "B" model was ever made. I did not see it at Edwards.

BTW, the different variants were flown by different groups. The SRs were SAC aircraft, while the interceptors, which took the world speed and altitude records from the Commies on May 1 1965 were not.
gkam
1 / 5 (14) May 22, 2016
BTW, the SRs were like B-52s, they flew alone. But on my last day at Eddie's, I heard the crash of sound and looked up in time to see three Blackbirds, nose-to-tail in a hard bank, coming into the pattern, really close to the ground. Perhaps a rare sight: They were the YF-12's which owned the world records at the time.
tblakely1357
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2016
I watched an SR-71 do a low, slow fly over many years ago.... extremely impressive, the sucker is huge.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) May 22, 2016
BTW, the different variants were flown by different groups.
Yeah, the A-12s and M-21s were CIA, and the SR-71s and YF-12s were AF.

The SRs were SAC aircraft, while the interceptors, which took the world speed and altitude records from the Commies on May 1 1965 were not.
You're talking about only the AF airframes.
xponen
2.7 / 5 (6) May 23, 2016
Since jet engine is an engine based on heat, it meant that it obey the rule of efficiency that govern a car, which is; higher temperature difference between intake & exhaust gas increase its efficiency.

I think it's called "carnot law". It meant that the intake air of a jet engine must be pre-cooled or alternatively the engine itself burn at higher temperature to make it work better.

The hypersonic air itself is hot when it slow down (into the engine) and the engine can't burn any hotter without melting... this is why the only solution for next generation engine is pre-cooling the intake air.
Im_your_huckleberry
3.6 / 5 (17) May 23, 2016
BTW, the SRs were like B-52s, they flew alone.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? I guess you are unfamiliar a thing called the Vietnam War? They were never tasked "alone", three to five for interdiction and harassment missions, and 10 to 25 for heavy area/saturation bombing.

Even the lone SAC Buffs did not fly "alone", they were invariably accompanied by fighter escorts.

You really should STFU if you don't know what you are talking about.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (15) May 23, 2016
@huck
I guess that gkam had a brain fart. I am pretty sure he meant SR and U2's. They flew alone at very high altitude... They were spy planes. Otherwise, I do not know why one would make any connection between SR71 (a spy plane) and a B52 (a bomber).

Isn't it mister G? See how bad you look again? I do not want to be mean with you... I am just suggesting that you add a little modesty to your online behaviour.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (10) May 23, 2016
Since jet engine is an engine based on heat, it meant that it obey the rule of efficiency that govern a car, which is; higher temperature difference between intake & exhaust gas increase its efficiency.
OK, yes, that's pretty much correct.

It meant that the intake air of a jet engine must be pre-cooled or alternatively the engine itself burn at higher temperature to make it work better.
This is where you go wrong. Your definition of "the engine" doesn't appear to include heat increase due to the act of compressing the air; this is a mistake. And you also forget that cooling the air takes work. You've already paid in friction- i.e. drag- to heat and compress the air. Now you're going to cool it at additional expense, and throw away the heat you gained at the expense of drag? Inefficient. You're going to allow it to expand again? Further inefficiency. You can't possibly get enough energy to offset that.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) May 23, 2016
[contd]
The hypersonic air itself is hot when it slow down (into the engine) and the engine can't burn any hotter without melting... this is why the only solution for next generation engine is pre-cooling the intake air.
First, in a scramjet, the air isn't slowed down. Second, apparently according to this test, they can pack more heat in and nothing melts. So I disagree with both your points here.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) May 23, 2016
Worth noting here that we can make ceramics that can stand the heat of reentry. Nothing that's happening in a scramjet is nearly that hot.

Also, it's very important to note the difference between temperature and heat. Another advantage of the scramjet is that because the airflow is supersonic there is less opportunity to transfer heat to the engine components, and they therefore run at a lower temperature, despite preserving the heat in the air. Another point here is that if you burn fuel you add heat no matter what temperature the air is.

Simply by using the heat in the most efficient way, the scramjet gets more thrust per unit fuel, and uses less oxidizer, both of which reduce pad weight of fuel and oxidizer. Throwing heat away isn't the most efficient way to run.
gkam
1 / 5 (14) May 23, 2016
It is all guesswork here. It would be interesting to make one scaled for test.

There is a supersonic wind tunnel at Moffett Field, but not hypersonic.
gkam
1 / 5 (14) May 23, 2016
Hey, Hucklebutt, the Buffs were made to fly alone, and did most of the time, except for Vietnam. And when they tried formation flying, they crashed. And SAC aircraft on patrol did NOT have fighter escorts, they were too far away from bases. The SR-71s were assigned to SAC, which flies alone. How many have you seen in formation? None.

You are another otto puppet with another phony name, like "tooty". How many Buffs and Blackbirds have you seen flying? Your gripe is about me and my experience, which you do not have. Shut-ins do not have real lives, and it shows in their attitudes.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (19) May 23, 2016
@ glam-Skippy. How you are Cher? Still making new friends with your charm I see. I am good today but pretty busy, thanks for asking.

Cher, I will be the first to admit I do not know much about airplanes, so I suppose I am the airplane goober, eh? But I got a question if you don't mind me asking.

the Buffs were made to fly alone
My Google-Skippy warrioring is failing me on that, I can not find anything about it. Does that mean they were designed with the intention of flying alone?

did most of the time, except for Vietnam.
Google-Skippy did help with that. So you need to put in some extra "excepts". Iraq 1, Kosvo, Irag 1&1/2, Afghanistan, Iraq 2 (Bush Jr's Iraq )

And when they tried formation flying, they crashed.
Another one Google-Skippy no help with. He did tell me over 30 were shot down during the Vietnam wars. Where can I find about them crashing whenever they tried to fly in groups?

I really want the answers so I won't down vote on here.
gkam
1 / 5 (14) May 23, 2016
The crashes happened on the very first raid on North Vietnam by a formation of Buffs - look it up - it cost the life of the leader.

Yes, they were mainly used to orbit outside the defenses of the Soviet Union, and go in separately with two big nukes. Later they got stand-off missiles which negated the need for penetration and the B-1, but Reagan got Alzheimers and we got the B-1B.

In Afghanistan, they did not fly in groups. Do you understand how much ordnance they carry - almost 70,000 lbs. They do not need groups, usually.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (18) May 23, 2016
The crashes happened on the very first raid on North Vietnam by a formation of Buffs - look it up - it cost the life of the leader..
Well you made sound like that happens whenever they try to fly in groups.

And when they tried formation flying, they crashed.
Once they had the problem in Vietnam, but hundreds of other times they didn't.

Nice try Skippy but where does this come from, it's what I can not find anywhere
the Buffs were made to fly alone
That sounds like you are saying they were intentionally designed that way. I can not find it non.

In Afghanistan, they did not fly in groups.
You asked to look it up, and I did. They flew in groups of 3 to 5. In Afghanistan and Iraq too.

I can find hundreds of examples where they fly in the groups, from Vietnam 1965 on to Afghanistan. But only one time
when they tried formation flying, they crashed.


Thanks though, I know more about B 52s now than I did yesterday.
gkam
1 / 5 (14) May 23, 2016
I was never on a combat BUFF. Ours were the oldest in service, (#s 003 and 008, with call signs Balls Three and Balls Eight) and were motherships for the experimental aircraft. They were often monsters to work on, with the old technologies and equipment. I was only in them a few times, for X-15 and M2-F2 Lifting Body launches.
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (17) May 23, 2016
I was never on a combat BUFF. Ours were the oldest in service, (#s 003 and 008, with call signs Balls Three and Balls Eight) and were motherships for the experimental aircraft. They were often monsters to work on, with the old technologies and equipment. I was only in them a few times, for X-15 and M2-F2 Lifting Body launches.


Well that is all good and well Cher. But you know me, I am the goober with the short attention span, eh? Non Cher, I am still wondering why
the Buffs were made to fly alone
. What does that even mean? You mentioned one, and only one midair crash but that does not explain
when they tried formation flying, they crashed


gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) May 23, 2016
Okay, . when they first tried formation flying they crashed.

Howz that?
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (19) May 23, 2016
Howz that?


Sounds like something you made up.

But you said
the Buffs were made to fly alone
,,,, so if they were "made to fly" that way, where can I get the information about that particular portion of their design planning.

Instead of blurting out things from the top of your head, maybe you should expect (by now you should) somebody is going to wonder "Why that is?". What you said got me curious, you told me to look him up, I did but couldn't find the answer, so now I would like some help.

All big bombers is a lot more clumsy than a fighter plane. Even the ones from back in the WW II, I realize they were not meant to fly like a fighter but being big and clumsy didn't stop them from flying 100's together. Some nights thousands.

On a side note, how many B 17s or B 29s had bumps and crashes too? As many as the B 52 (relative to numbers I mean)? Maybe they should have flown alone too.
Estevan57
3.7 / 5 (18) May 23, 2016
Ira, what gkam is saying is that during first combat mission over Vietnam the first flight of 30 planes arrived early, and while in a wait maneuver, two planes collided and crashed.

From this he concludes that formation flying was the cause. The B-52 has had hundreds if not thousands of sorties in both large and small formations. One mid-air crash is not a trend.
Have a good day.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (18) May 23, 2016
The B-52 has had hundreds if not thousands of sorties in both large and small formations. One mid-air crash is not a trend.Have a good day.


That is what I was thinking. Actually, that is what I was already pretty sure just by thinking it out. But after the Doc-Holiday-Skippy who was saying that too (he sounded like he actually knows what he was talking about), I decided I would do like glam-Skippy said, look it up.

Those B 52s have flown in groups all through their existence from what I can tell. Some might have flown alone, maybe most flew alone, but it is not unusual for them to bomb in groups like Vietnam, Iraq 1, Kosovo, Iraq 1&1/2, Iraq 2 and Afghanistan. I would guess that they might have too in Korea if they had been ready then.

But I do got to thank glam-Skippy for one thing true, today I know a whole more about B 52s than I did yesterday. Too bad all he can take credit for is "look it up".
Estevan57
3.7 / 5 (18) May 23, 2016
One of my personal favorite books is a history of the B-17 by Martin Caidin.

*http://www.goodre...d_War_II
*https://www.amazo...0433TNUI

I read a couple chapters about what its like to go over Germany, then go to the the local small airport and go in the rental B-17F that tours every summer. Gives me a chill to get a sense of the courage it takes to get in that little plane.
TehDog
5 / 5 (17) May 23, 2016
/ramble
I was interested in their defensive capabilities, could explain the formation flying. Tailgun only, quad 50 cals, or a vulcan on the H, AA missile defense only. (A fighter would not engage from the rear. Get above, come across the tail, cannon strafing, or drop in above the tail for missiles.)
An example of that kind of fighter;
https://en.wikipe...ightning

Get a group of big planes in a low speed loiter orbit at high altitude, reduced lift, no computer assist, gotta be as sluggish as hell to compensate for any unexpected maneuvers.
/ramble
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) May 23, 2016
Sky Spot radar is pretty good as a targeting system. At Khe Sanh we (The Air Force), had the Marines stomp chickenwire into the ground in two hills, which show up as bright spots on the B-52 radar, points for triangulating targets. It allowed them to put the bombs where the VC were even in the Monsoon Season, and they got that information from Igloo White and our sensors, over 350 of which were put around Khe Sanh.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (18) May 24, 2016
Sky Spot radar is pretty good as a targeting system. At Khe Sanh we (The Air Force), had the Marines stomp chickenwire into the ground in two hills, which show up as bright spots on the B-52 radar, points for triangulating targets. It allowed them to put the bombs where the VC were even in the Monsoon Season, and they got that information from Igloo White and our sensors, over 350 of which were put around Khe Sanh.


And you wonder why everybody thinks you are a moron. I bet you are the guy who when some peoples are having a nice chat down at the Starbuck's see you parking your car and they say: "Oh choot,,, here's glam-Skippy,,,, let's duck into the back,,,,,, maybe if he doesn't see us he won't stay." Is that you Cher? The guy who everybody tries to avoid because you suck all the oxygen out of the room?
Garrote
3 / 5 (14) May 24, 2016
So, what's your personality profile of the only person that would stay and argue with him?

"Pitiful all around" comes to mind.
Garrote
2.9 / 5 (15) May 24, 2016
gkam 2.3 /5 (3) 11 hours ago
Okay, . when they first tried formation flying they crashed.

Howz that?


Pitching outside the line of off stump.

Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (18) May 24, 2016
So, what's your personality profile of the only person that would stay and argue with him?
Never really thought about it. If you have spent some time on it, maybe you can tell me what it is, eh?

"Pitiful all around" comes to mind.
Well coming from a Skippy who spends a lot of time arguing with couyons I suppose you would know something about that. What? You are the only one here that gets to have fun with the trolls? That's kind of selfish of you.
AGreatWhopper
2.2 / 5 (17) May 24, 2016
Can any of you Brits find a suitable barrister or whatever for me to hire to go after PO and otto?

I am serious.


I guess you can't google one for yourself. OK; I'll spoon feed you. You have to do the following.

1) Stop arguing with him.
2) Send a "Cease and Desist" letter to PO.
3) Quote the statute. https://cab.org.j...temid=53 It's quite clear and obviously applicable.
4) If it continues, contact someone like these people. They'll pick his bones clean. I've worked with them.
Carey Olsen
St Peter Port, Guernsey
Phone+44 1481 727272

5) Wonder why people don't vote down his personal attacks. Visit a clinical psychologist and ask about "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" if you can't figure it out.

NB: You two are on my shit list. Your bickering will not be tolerated.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (18) May 24, 2016
1) Stop arguing with him.
He doesn't have the will power to do that.

2) Send a "Cease and Desist" letter to PO.
He has already done that one, a bunch of them. It's a source of great big fun.

3) Quote the statute. https://cab.org.j...temid=53 It's quite clear and obviously applicable.
It's not quite that applicable. You know, that silly "Fling the first rock" thing. There is no "Moron who brings it on him self" clause.

4) If it continues, contact someone like these people. They'll pick his bones clean. I've worked with them.
You know how may couyons have said something like that? It's a very common misunderstanding that peoples have thinking they are somehow protected from having their feelings hurt because they are stupid.
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (17) May 24, 2016
NB: You two are on my shit list.
Am I NB? Maybe, so now I guess I must take you serious, eh?

Your bickering will not be tolerated.
Does that mean you are leaving?

Does that mean you are going to put me on the ignore?

Does that mean you are going to suck it up and get over it?

Those are your options Cher, your only options.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Maybe it means we should use you for the example of how not to act? You double standard hypocrites sure are transparent, eh? Are you the chief couyon who decides which trolls are off-limits?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) May 24, 2016
Hilarious. AGW thinks anyone with experience is a narcissist. I wrote about those pertinent-to-the issue experiences because I had them, and expected you folk to ask about them, like would be done in a normal forum, but you folk have ego issues.

In this thread,for example, I am probably the only person who has worked on rocket planes. May be the only one who has done an X-15 launch. Perhaps the only one who experienced the joys and tragedies of experimental aircraft. I thought you would want to know what it was like.

But many of you just see someone with the experience you do not have, being wiki-warriors. Go lick your little hurt ego.
Im_your_huckleberry
4.2 / 5 (15) May 24, 2016
You are another otto puppet with another phony name, like "tooty".
No I am not. I am veteran who has been offended many times by your trite denigration of veterans for the last year.

How many Buffs and Blackbirds have you seen flying?
Probably more than you have you. I did three separate tours in Vietnam, 65-66, 67-68, 71-72 USMC, Force Recon. BDA's behind the B-52 missions was one of the things we did often. Finding and marking targets for them was another. I also spent a couple of years on both Guam and Diego Garcia where they flew almost daily. .

Your gripe is about me and my experience, which you do not have.
My gripe is about you. I do have experience asshole, 27 years (1965-1992) USMC. Three tours in Vietnam, the 1st Gulf War, and a dozen billets across the globe. My 27 trumps your 3 sonny.

Shut-ins do not have real lives, and it shows in their attitudes.
And punks like you can only run your mouth on the internet without getting slapped.
gkam
1 / 5 (13) May 24, 2016
Well, come and slap me, Mister Killer.

I did not denigrate veterans, I blame the politicians. Unless you have done things of which you are not proud, it is not you.

I stood up to the Vietnam War while still in it.

I learned long ago about the dangers of jumping on bandwagons. Sorry about you.

Did you do bad things? Do not blame me.
gkam
1 / 5 (13) May 24, 2016
I had working for me once a woman whose husband was on the Turner Joy during the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. It was all a lie.

We mass-murdered those Vietnamese just so we could choose which crook got to run the country.
gkam
1 / 5 (13) May 24, 2016
I do not want to denigrate any price paid by any veteran. So, stop assuming I mean the vets. I mean the cowardly politicians who sent us to kill for them.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (17) May 24, 2016
@ glam-Skippy, do you ever spend even a moment or two thinking about what you are writing before you push the postum button? Cher you are too old or brittle-brained for this type of stuffs. You really should find some other way trying to make your self feel important, this one is not working to good for you.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (18) May 24, 2016
@ huckleberry-Skippy. Thank you for your service Cher. My daddy was the Marine too. Don't mind glam-Skippy, he just is really bad at the social stuffs. He is even rude to the peoples who actually try to be his friend. Please don't take him personal non.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (14) May 24, 2016
Now *that* is a classic slapdown. Gracie, if I were you I'd apologize to the nice Marine and move on. I doubt you will, given past performance, but hey, maybe you'll get it this time.

And take off your hat.

/me is not holding his breath.

And right along with @Ira,

@huckleberry, thanks for your service from over here too. I'm just a squid, but hey, man, Semper Fi.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (14) May 24, 2016
Now that is a classic exposition of your own character. Stop following the mob, and think for yourself.

Ira and the others got mad. Tough. They are mostly snipers, hiding behind pseudonyms.

Yes, . . HIDING.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (14) May 24, 2016
Standing up to the war while still in it cost me, but it showed more guts than following the mob of conditioned puppets. The war was a criminal act, and once I saw that, I stood up against it. Am I the only one with guts here?

Do the rest of you just fall for "WMD!" and the other inciting and transparent schemes to manipulate you?
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (14) May 24, 2016
Yeah, I didn't think you were smart enough to take good advice, Gracie.

Doubling down again. Just like Libertardians. Just like the Electric Universe idiots. Just like AGW deniers. Just like every other crank.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (15) May 24, 2016
This is getting nasty.

I am gone from this thread.
jim_xanara
1.9 / 5 (17) May 25, 2016
Im_your_huckleberry 4 / 5 (4) 18 hours ago
No I am not. I am veteran who has been offended many times by your trite denigration of veterans for the last year.


You're a hired killer brainwashed with propaganda. You do no service to your countrymen and are as laudable as a suicide bomber. The only difference between you is you have less balls.

Fuck genuflecting to the empire's hired killers. I'm shocked that those that have weaned themselves off religious fairy stories still believe nationalist fairy stories.
SLOOHCox
2.1 / 5 (11) May 25, 2016
Damned straight, JX! The only bigger cowards in the world are cops. You want to see "spouse doesn't know if they'll be coming home every day", heroism and all done at rock bottom wages, talk to the person that holds the "slow" sign in the middle of the road works.
antialias_physorg
2.4 / 5 (14) May 25, 2016
You're a hired killer brainwashed with propaganda.

A bit harsh, but generally
However, becoming a soldier doesn't make someone automatically a bad person. The intentions and motives to take that step may all be just fine (from a moral point of view). That they don't mesh with reality (i.e. are the product of propaganda and indoctrination) is a different issue.

"Give me a child by the age of 7..." (or in the case of countries with low educational standards "...by the age of 21...") ... and you can turn them into almost anything despite the childs best intentions.

Certainly "being a veteran" doesn't merit any more respect than "having been a sales clerk". Why would it?
gkam
1 / 5 (11) May 25, 2016
"Certainly "being a veteran" doesn't merit any more respect than "having been a sales clerk". Why would it?"
-------------------------------

What?

Because the clerk started out at more than the $84/month I got. Because the clerk does not have to do what we did, and work as hard, and in the danger. I worked until I dropped when it was necessary.

And I doubt any group of clerks would have suffered the 55 dead our group had.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (11) May 25, 2016
@AA
The two lesser people that commented before you are not worthy of my time. But you, who usually make thoughtful comments, certainly deserve to be met with a barrage of disapproval.

The army is a tool of the political realm alright, but in democratic societies it is up to the people to choose the leaders that will use this tool wisely. Many times we have to choose for the lesser evil, I concede. But those who forfeit their voting rights are just as responsible for the bad leaders and the unjustified wars we have. I would say that usually, the stupidest leader is the one that starts the war. ( Like Dabya who went to war with Irak; a country that had no role in 9/11. I am not surprise that he now spreads his empty mind in naive paintings ). But there will always be bad leaders on the planet so the army is a necessity.

tbc
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (11) May 25, 2016
...

Those who fight wars are neither right nor wrong; they are just part of this necessity. To show contempt or accuse those who deserve an immense respect for risking their lives is abject. I hope that many others will come and express their dissatisfaction.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (12) May 25, 2016
I want to meet up with AA. I suggest we go to the local Vet Center, which takes walk-ins for help with anger management. If you had their experiences you would be crying in bed.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (14) May 25, 2016
...

Those who fight wars are neither right nor wrong; they are just part of this necessity. To show contempt or accuse those who deserve an immense respect for risking their lives is abject. I hope that many others will come and express their dissatisfaction.


I pretty much side with you on this one. I am not really dissatisfied with AA-Skippy's comment, I just think it was trying to reduce something really deep and complicated to couple of sentences. The human condition deserves a little more thought into the nuances and the total big picture.

The two comments before his was a troll, non different than the trolls he "does battle" with every day using a dozen puppets, cut from the same mold, with the same goals and intentions. It's really easy to find the faults in somebody and only fault if you have never done what they have done.
gkam
1 / 5 (11) May 25, 2016
" It's really easy to find the faults in somebody and only fault if you have never done what they have done."

Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (13) May 25, 2016
" It's really easy to find the faults in somebody and only fault if you have never done what they have done."


Like that one Cher? It's a lesson you try to think about from time to time, especially when you feel inclined to say really silly stuffs like "you have done nothing" and "you would not know" and "wiki warrior" and "have no experience" and "have no education". 99.99% of the times you say that, you guessed wrong, and repeating it a hundred times a day doesn't make it any more true.
gkam
1 / 5 (11) May 25, 2016
Are you not a Wiki-warrior? Did you work on rocket plans? Did you have any pertinent experience in this field?

You asserted I did not do the NASA studies and reports, too. And you denied I worked at the Air Force Flight Test Center, and later did the Electronic Battlefield. I EARNED my posts, Ira. I did not "look them up".
gkam
1.3 / 5 (12) May 25, 2016
I do not know what you stay-at-home folk think,but I came home from the war in a delirium, and woke up in a terminal ward. I am the only survivor of that group and nobody knows why.

I see the war every night. It affects how I respond to others, having paid the price for your freedom of speech.

I suggest you lay off the criticism unless you are correct and can prove it.
antialias_physorg
2.2 / 5 (10) May 25, 2016
The army is a tool of the political realm alright, but in democratic societies it is up to the people to choose the leaders that will use this tool wisely.

Werl..that's the point, innit?

In the end joining the army is: "I permanently hand over all the decisions about life and death (my own and that of others - irrespective of whether it's morally correct or not to be killed or kill) to you". That's not really a job decision I can respect.

People should not make that kind of decision - especially not knowing who their boss is going to be one minute to the next.

I really have a problem with the words 'politicians' and 'wisely' being used in the same sentence. (More to the point considering the current situation re. Trump...the words 'people choose' and 'wisely' in the same sentence)

The last time an army was used for good was...erm...never (not even in WWII, before you say so. Look up the history of that some time)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (12) May 25, 2016
Are you not a Wiki-warrior? Did you work on rocket plans? Did you have any pertinent experience in this field?
You don't know what I know or do not know Skippy. That is why you have always been at a great disadvantage with me. You have no idea except a strong hope your guess on that is right.

You asserted I did not do the NASA studies and reports, too.
That is a lie Skippy. I asserted you never proved you did.

And you denied I worked at the Air Force Flight Test Center, and later did the Electronic Battlefield.
That is another GREAT BIG LIE Skippy. I did ridicule the way tried to make out to be more than it was.

I EARNED my posts, Ira.
And the votes you got to go along with them.

I did not "look them up".
Well maybe you should have done that Skippy. You would have made fewer mistakes with your blurts and blahs that way. You record here puts the lie to your version of your "experiences". It puts the lie to you being any kind of "expert".
antialias_physorg
2.1 / 5 (11) May 25, 2016
Those who fight wars are neither right nor wrong;

Can't really see that. Those who fight wars are wrong. All of them. Or are you saying a hitman isn't responsible for his actions?

"Necessity" is invoked when everyone has already failed. (as a side note: the un-word of the year over here was "alternativlos" (without alternative...i.e. absolutely necessary) a couple years back...which is PR-babble for "we'll do whatever the hell we want")

Yes, I realize that sometimes fighting is inevitable to avert a humane desaster. Funnily enough when such action would be warranted it never happens (Darfur, anyone?). Soldiers (particularly in the US) have historically only been employed to secure financial gain (this includes WWII). So the 'hero' aspect of this veteran worship really escapes me.

Soldiers are hitmen with fancy suits and a steady paycheck.
gkam
1 / 5 (11) May 25, 2016
More than it was? Not being in the service, how do you know how important it was? It put my picture on the front page of the newspaper of the Air Force Flight Test Center. The Electronic Battlefield? We had the Presidential Priority over all other units in the war. Want to see the proclamation by Walt W Rostow? Look up Igloo White, and see what we did.

And I never "proved" I did the NASA studies and reports? I sent you the entire NASA catalog with my post on the top of page 41. I guess you "forgot". And I never claimed to be an"expert" in anything. I just proved my experience in what you have no idea about.

It seems that folk with actual experience are "liars", while you stay-at-home "patriots" are always right in your silly guesses about the reality of the service.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (15) May 25, 2016
I am the only survivor of that group and nobody knows why.
glam-Skippy I am calling BS on that. Tell us about that please.

I see the war every night.
You said you were on the Air Force base in Thailand and rode about the countryside on a motor scooter.

It affects how I respond to others, having paid the price for your freedom of speech.
That is why you sound so phony in most of your blurts and blahs here. In the same article comment section you go from being the high moral person who paid a price for being against an immoral war with mass murdering,,,, to being a great warrior paying the price for the noble cause cause of free speech.

Well which one was it? Did you "fight" for our "free speech"? Or did you "stand up" against the "mass murdering"?

Can you not see how YOU make it impossible to take you serious? Cher you really are your own worst enemy when it comes to reinforcing doubts about your credibility. And you can not learn from your mistakes.
gkam
1 / 5 (11) May 25, 2016
"Soldiers are hitmen with fancy suits and a steady paycheck."
---------------------------

Once again, let's meet up at a Vet Center near you. I think you need some straightening out. This is not an invitation to violence, it is a chance to have you actually see what others go through so you can shoot off you Big Mouth.

And,once again,Ira chooses to attack personally, not having any experience in the field under discussion. Being limited, he makes nasty statements in order to "get even" with those who have left him sputtering.
gkam
1 / 5 (11) May 25, 2016
No, Ira, you are not going to hear of my eleven weeks in the hospital. You are ignorant of what we went through, and I will not give you a chance to denigrate our service. Your analysis of war vets is disgusting, and what I would expect from someone with no experience and no character.

Just stick with your nasty comments about others, since you have nothing intelligent to say about the technical issues in question.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (14) May 25, 2016
@ AA-Skippy. Let qualify what I am about to say, eh? You are on the short list list of peoples on the physorg that actually teaches me stuffs almost every day. I really do mean that. Your postums are always well thought and orderly and go right to the substance. So I hope I don't alienate you with this comment.

On this subject, you are making the exact same error in reverse that bachoot, cantdrive, hans, bluehigher and the EU guys make. They say "it looks like so it must be" and think art and imagination is all that is needed to make a valid science theory. That is wrong. It lacks discipline.

But you seem to think that approaching the human condition, human society, and human history can be treated as a cut and dry math or engineering problem. The tools of hard science do not apply to man and his society. There are too many variables, nuances and exceptions. It just can't be made into a free body diagram and solved. The subject is too uncertain.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (14) May 25, 2016
And,once again,Ira chooses to attack personally, not having any experience in the field under discussion.
And, once again, glam-Skippy chooses say what he just does not know. To keep saying that silly thing does not make it any truer. You do not know what I know, but by now you should have gotten some idea. Cher, you don't have any idea about what experiences I have, but by now you should have a few suspicions.

Cher, you really need to consider that people ARE what they are, not what you HOPE they are. And you really need to work on giving up that "talking a good game" habit,,,, because teamed with your habit of underestimating EVERYBODY you come in contact with all you have ever had from it, and all you will ever have from it, is grand misere.

I am pretty busy today so I can not fool around with much more. But one parting advisment, eh? Cher, YOU do not know what I know, YOU do not know my experiences, YOU do not know what I have done, that is my grand advantage.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (14) May 25, 2016
No, Ira, you are not going to hear of my eleven weeks in the hospital.
I want to know about the "only survivor" BS. Choot, you claimed you were in Thailand, you said you rode around the country on a motor scooter, you said you were not in Vietnam,,,,, choot, you said you didn't even fly in the air planes your self. So I want to know about what it was you were the "only survivor" of?

Your analysis of war vets is disgusting, and what I would expect from someone with no experience and no character.
What analysis Skippy? Have you not even tried to read the things I have written here? This is another one of your weird ideas of "hoping" you can guess what I think? You are a grade A moron Cher. You prove it in spades every time you push the "postum button".
gkam
1 / 5 (11) May 25, 2016
Yeah, Ira, and you, an anonymous troll with no education or experience in this field cannot let it go, can you? You got taught a lesson in technical discussion, Ira, and all you can do is attack folk personally.

You do not get to hear of my tribulations so you can make fun of the suffering of others, who did what you did not.

What you "think"? You are not real, Ira, you are just an anonymous troll like Rumpy and otto, and antigore. You are all hiding behind phony names, too scared to take responsibility for your pathetic words.

Give up the attacks.
TechnoCreed
4.7 / 5 (13) May 25, 2016
@Mister G
All the special claims you make on the internet are either fantasies ( where I write you I mean anybody ). On this I prefer to be wrong than naive.

Or they serve to glorify your pitiful little ass ( where I write your I mean anybody's ). And this is just as reprehensible as trying to fool others.

Would it be possible for you to express yourself online without making any special claims? It is just a standard rule of respect amongst total strangers.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (12) May 25, 2016
No special claims, I had those experiences and they were pertinent to the issues being discussed. If you do not want to believe them, okay. I sent proof to others.

But what is your problem?

Glorify? What the hell is "glory"? There is none in war, only suffering and depravity.

If the topic was rocket planes and you had direct experience would not you admit it and enlighten us on how it was done, and what it was like? I tried to do that. The same with Igloo
White and electronic reconnaissance, and the same with GE Mark I & Mark II BWRs, and the same with Alternative Energy, and the same with Power Quality, and the same with making integrated circuits as an EE for National, as well being a utility engineer, and the other stuff.

Did you do the same lame stuff all your life? I always wondered how folk could be so lazy and incurious.

But here, the trolls have ego problems, I guess.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) May 25, 2016
27 years (1965-1992) USMC. Three tours in Vietnam, the 1st Gulf War, and a dozen billets across the globe. My 27 trumps your 3 sonny.
@Im_your_huckleberry
Semper Fi - lots of respect for the Marines
but don't waste your breath on the REMF POG - see how he replied above?

just ignore her... she aint served IRL

ever hang with the army pukes? like the 2 ID from Casey/Lewis?
and THREE tours in 'Nam?
holy crap!

hit SciForums and say HI to "truckcaptain Stumpy" - tell me what AO's you were in while assigned to 'Nam

PEACE
gkam
1 / 5 (12) May 25, 2016
There are no firetrucks with jet or rocket engines.

And do not confuse my opposition to war as critiques of the veterans.

I learned my lesson. It is time for you to learn yours.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (13) May 25, 2016
There are no firetrucks with jet or rocket engines.


Speakin' of Jet's or rocket engines -
Isn't that what this comment thread is supposed to be about?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (13) May 25, 2016
Soldiers are hitmen with fancy suits and a steady paycheck
@AA_P
gonna have to say i am with IRA on this one

also note: not all soldiers/military are combatants, nor are they even killers... in fact, it depends on the branch of service & job

In the Marines/Army, you are a soldier first and foremost, but in the AF/Navy, you tend to be a specialist in a job, and that means you do a JOB regardless of the situation (be it cook, firefighting, radio-tech, etc)

some jobs will also require combat training due to the potential exposure (Cop, Security, Bomb techs, EOD, Firefighters, Emergency Engineering forces) but exposure will be rare and dependent upon the call of duty/assignment

most soldiers go careers without much violence - like Cop duty in various nations, just because you are a cop doesn't mean you get shot at daily, etc

feel free to contact me via PM if you want to discuss this more
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (12) May 25, 2016
@Mister G
Even if it was the truth; if I made claims to have any qualifications in aeronautics why would anyone take my words for it? On the net I could claim to be a top model if I want... too bad for those who would fall for that; they would be in for a serious deception :-D

Like I said earlier, I prefer be wrong than naive. I would not even bet an old 5 $ that Huck who expressed his thought earlier was really a vet and that is no special claim.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (15) May 25, 2016
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) May 25, 2016
There are no firetrucks with jet or rocket engines.


https://www.youtu...Z4do-k4A

@Ira
Loved those links ROTFLMFAO
but she won't get it... nice try
I just ignore her now LOL

.

.

.

... why would anyone take my words for it?
@Techno
yeah - i tried explaining the /b/ro Rule 37 to her already... it doesn't help
that is why i suggested links/references instead of "i was a..."
bet an old 5 $ that Huck ...was really a vet and that is no special claim
that is why ya PM or ask questions... it's called Validation

things change, and without research, the experience of the past just doesn't always translate well...

it's like comparing car mechanics of today to those of the 1950's... which is better?
depends on the vehicle they're working on, doesn't it?

some people just don't understand that in the fast pace of modern tech or science it's about what you can do now and what you can prove
gkam
1 / 5 (12) May 25, 2016
" I would not even bet an old 5 $ that Huck who expressed his thought earlier was really a vet and that is no special claim."

I take him at his word. There were lots of folk like that. When somebody like me complains about the morality of what we were doing, it is a slap in their face, but unintended to be such. It is more a scream of agony for all of us to have been through that, in one way or other.

When I came back, I defended the war I opposed when in it, not to defend the war, but the poor folk who got caught up in it. Most of them back then were draftees, who wanted no part of the killing. And the folk we killed were largely draftees, too.

Nasty stuff. Let's get back to hypersonic aircraft.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (12) May 25, 2016
Soldiers are hitmen with fancy suits and a steady paycheck
@AA_P
gonna have to say i am with IRA on this one

also note: not all soldiers/military are combatants, nor are they even killers... in fact, it depends on the branch of service & job
I was Army Signal. Never touched a weapon after basic. Matter of fact, never saw the equipment I was trained on, either (Already 24 people trained on it in country - and only 2 systems...) Instead was put in place as a glorified (electronically trained) supply (S4) minion. An accountant of a signal battalion's entire logistics "stuff"...
And I was REALLY good at finding even MORE "stuff"...
gkam
1 / 5 (12) May 25, 2016
Only two systems, . . tropo?

I was airborne comm, but working the flightline at Eddies was too full of people crashing, burning and more of the same. The first thing I saw at Korat, before getting off the C-141 was a Thai guard still burning at the end of the runway. The last was an F-105 losing AB a third of the way down the runway loaded with bombs - sure death. He jettisoned the canopy, probably to snug himself up in the ejection seat for the impact at the barrier. Ground-level ejection in the F-105 then meant death. He crashed and burned, but I did not find out any more about him.

I was just sick of the killing and dying.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (12) May 25, 2016
I was airborne comm, but working the flightline at Eddies was too full of people crashing, burning and more of the same. The first thing I saw at Korat, before getting off the C-141 was a Thai guard still burning at the end of the runway. The last was an F-105 losing AB a third of the way down the runway loaded with bombs - sure death. He jettisoned the canopy, probably to snug himself up in the ejection seat for the impact at the barrier. Ground-level ejection in the F-105 then meant death. He crashed and burned, but I did not find out any more about him.
I was just sick of the killing and dying.

Are your phys.org comments cathartic?
How/why do you bother to remember all that stuff? That was then. This is now...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) May 25, 2016
Only two systems, . . tropo?

32f - fixed cyphony. Korea. 74/75.
antialias_physorg
1.8 / 5 (5) May 25, 2016
not all soldiers/military are combatants, nor are they even killers... in fact, it depends on the branch of service & job

I'm not really seeing how oiling the machinery, manufacturing a nuclear missile or anti-personnell mine, folding parachutes or being a chaplain is much different from the one pulling the trigger. It's like with any other cime. If you pay for it, commit it , or supply the means to it you're all to blame. How does this suddenly not apply to the military?

Yes, I fully know that some people in the military actually have nothing but the best intentions. But being as it is pretty blatantly obvious what the military is used for (as opposed what they *advertise* what it is used for) I can't really excuse anyone for falling for this...at least not at the age when they join. (Child soldiers are a different issue)

Cop duty is not comparable. Cops operate within the law. Soldiers - by definition - do not.
ChiefFartingDog
May 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ChiefFartingDog
May 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (10) May 25, 2016
Cop duty is not comparable. Cops operate within the law. Soldiers - by definition - do not.
This is actually incorrect. There are laws in war, at least in this day and age.

Just as an obvious example I'll cite the Geneva Conventions. By and large, professional soldiers follow them, and when they don't, by and large it comes out and they get prosecuted by their own military, at least among the industrial democracies. These laws are getting tougher and better enforced all the time, too.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (10) May 25, 2016
[contd]
You have some good points, @antialias, and in an ideal world I'd agree with almost all of them, but this is not an ideal world. At the point where you have a modern army engaging in pillage and rapine, the question becomes whether you choose to support doing something about it or permitting it to go on by turning a blind eye. And at the point where you have a non-professional force regularly and persistently engaging in acts that violate the laws of war and justifying it on a non-rational basis like religion or ethnicity, this is outside the scope of a law enforcement agency.

It is these two factors that require the existence of military forces; that they may be abused for less savory purposes is beside the point. The point is, at a certain point something must be done and it cannot be done by any other means than military force.

[contd]
john berry_hobbes
1.3 / 5 (12) May 25, 2016
Would you remind me about the enforcement of those laws when Iraqi soldiers were surrendering in the first GW and American GIs simply shot them? I'm not talking about an isolated incident. Ask any Bradley gunner that was on the front lines. Any. They'll tell you that it happened and that everyone knew all about it. That's pretty basic, isn't it? If you're the good guys you don't summarily execute uniformed soldiers lined up and marching towards you with their hands in the air?
john berry_hobbes
1 / 5 (11) May 25, 2016
Captain Stumpy 5 / 5 (4) 3 hours ago

also note: not all soldiers/military are combatants, nor are they even killers... in fact, it depends on the branch of service & job


Gotcha. So the guy that does the books for the mob isn't involved in murder because he's not a hit man. Well, you must be outraged that the US is assassinating ISIS computer techs. They're not shooting anyone.

DOUBLE.
STANDARD.

It's the stuff empires are made of.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) May 25, 2016
[contd]
I'll also point out that you tar with a wide brush that makes no allowance for the fact that most professional soldiers from industrialized democracies in fact do not commit atrocities and in fact will not tolerate them from their fellows no matter how strong the bonds of shared combat may be. They simply cannot and will not stomach it. It's bad enough having to kill enemy soldiers who are shooting back; killing innocents sticks in their craws. It activates their social instincts (often called "conscience") and as a famous author said, "Murder will out."

Anyone willing to go out at the pointy end and support my democracy deserves my respect, and since the vast majority do not engage in war crimes, I no more convict them for the crimes of the minority than I do any other class; I will point out that your wide brush is used by racists to convict all black people of the crimes of their fellows.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) May 25, 2016
[contd]
Equally, blaming soldiers for the faults of their political masters makes no more sense than blaming blacks for the faults of drug dealers; we resist that, why should we not also resist this?

I invite you, @antialias, to consider these points carefully. I look forward to your rational response.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) May 25, 2016
Would you remind me about the enforcement of those laws when Iraqi soldiers were surrendering in the first GW and American GIs simply shot them?
Ummm, actually, some evidence please?
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (14) May 25, 2016
@ AA-Skippy.

If you pay for it, commit it , or supply the means to it you're all to blame. How does this suddenly not apply to the military?
Every member of the tribe pays, supplies or supports it.

Unless you live in a country that has absolutely no professional defense forces, and depends on only private citizens, each armed at his sole expense. Do you live in such a country? I am sorry, but I can not think of one country in the entire earth like that. You do pay and support and supply your county's military.
TehDog
5 / 5 (9) May 25, 2016
Hmm, I just tried to post on another thread, and got a blank white message box,

http://phys.org/n...gen.html

Works here tho...
TehDog
5 / 5 (10) May 25, 2016
And found the fix. Control characters in the referring URL. Stripped all but the target URL and voila. Over enthusiastic input checks I can accept, lack of an error message, that's just lazy.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) May 26, 2016
Cop duty is not comparable. Cops operate within the law. Soldiers - by definition - do not
@AA_P
you are very wrong here. the military has a much stricter law than even cops (from the UCMJ to Geneva convention etc) and we also have obligations to abide by national laws of the countries we live in like Germany (with rare exception: Embassy, MIL/US owned property, etc)

& jobs like military cop/firefighter/paramedic/dr/research/nurse etc all are non-combatant roles (again, with very rare exception) and are only armed for specific purpose, but only when allowed by law

no medical professionals or religious priests/etc are allowed to be armed in per Geneva - the wearing of a firearm even with the medical professional enters you into the realm of combatant, per the law, thus you are a combatant, not medical (again, per the law)

i understand your guilt by association point, i don't agree with it
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) May 26, 2016
I'm not talking about an isolated incident. Ask any Bradley gunner that was on the front lines
@John b_h
would you be so kind as to supply links/references to this claim?
thanks
So the guy that does the books for the mob isn't involved in murder because he's not a hit man
there is a difference in old school mob and now, for starters
for two - does the book maker know what the actual mob, books or crimes being done?
that would be guilt by association (the knowledge of a crime without doing anything about it kinda thing)

would you hang a modern CPA who balanced the books for a crime syndicate without knowledge of the specific crimes? better yet, what if said junior CPA was simply doing a job and had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of anything but the money, accounts and transfers... like most modern banks... does that make the bank culpable in said crime as well?

not in the US
culpability, intent and knowledge have to be proven to prosecute
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) May 26, 2016
@john b_h
Well, you must be outraged that the US is assassinating ISIS computer techs
actually, i would be if i knew they weren't combatants because this is in direct violation of the Geneva convention, especially if they are not armed and have committed no known criminal acts (keywords being criminal acts)

but then again, i also know that i don't know about what you're referring to nor do i know all the info behind it ... and there is likely a lot of information we are not receiving, therefore how can i make an informed decision without all the information and facts?

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) May 26, 2016
I'm not really seeing how oiling the machinery, manufacturing a nuclear missile or anti-personnell mine, folding parachutes or being a chaplain is much different from the one pulling the trigger. It's like with any other cime
Of course not. You believe that a country shouldn't defend itself until an enemy has crossed its border. You also believe that any civilian casualty is a war crime, even when jihadis are shooting down planes from the rooftops of hospitals and storing arms in schools.

You believe in losing at any cost.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) May 26, 2016
There are no firetrucks with jet or rocket engines.

And do not confuse my opposition to war as critiques of the veterans.

I learned my lesson. It is time for you to learn yours

I was just sick of the killing and dying.
I think its fair to say that most any vet who knew you like we do would want to beat the shit out of you for the things you say and the lies you tell.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) May 26, 2016
There are no firetrucks with jet or rocket engines.


https://www.youtu...Z4do-k4A

Ha that's pretty good.

It is so strange how George kamburoff just naturally believes every single thought that pops into his head. Much like this guy.
https://www.youtu...6f258RKY

@2:30
gkam
1 / 5 (10) May 26, 2016
otto dreams of me.

I hope he changes the sheets afterward.
TehDog
5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2016
Why the hell did 3 folks give me 5 stars for a coupla test posts? Not cool :(
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) May 27, 2016
Why the hell did 3 folks give me 5 stars for a coupla test posts? Not cool :(


I do not know why the other peoples did but I did because it reminded me of me when I am talking to my self while I am trying to figure out something I am doing wrong on the computer. You would be surprised how many times in the day that happens to me. Well maybe you would not be surprised but it happens a lot. That is why I give the 5 karma votes.
TehDog
5 / 5 (8) May 27, 2016
Yeah, I was kinda talking to myself there :), and I guess the thing about removing (ampersand)(some number) was useful.
Just hope I'm not the subject of some cunning social experiment :]

(It's possible to craft attacks using control characters embedded in URL's, which is why they're filtered)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) May 28, 2016
cunning social experiment
@TehDog
so... how did it feel to get that 5?
LMFAO

jk

.

...is much different from the one pulling the trigger
@AA_P
something to consider:
you live in a nation and are a part of it's people by birth, but you choose to live where you do, right?
does that choice of living location make you complicit in every crime that is done in your region because of your choice to be located there?

lots of folk don't get to "choose" their military job... is that complicity on their part?

you did choose to live where you do, so is that actively demonstrating your complicity on, say, a random mugging on your street or robbery at your local store?

think on that a spell... because if you think just being *in* the military makes one complicit in any crime committed by them, then you are also complicit in even your own nations crimes, right?
(or region, state, city, subdivision, etc...)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.