It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by esecallum
It was us Americans who saved europe from Hitler in WW1 and ww2 and cominusts.we gave you a trillion dollars in the marshall plan to rebuild europe after hitler destroyed you.we own you people.
[edit on 16-8-2007 by esecallum]
Originally posted by esecallum
EVEN IF A MISSILE TUMBLED THE GYROSCOPE WOULD STABILIZE IT.
also you claim to be able to dodge missiles but you ignore tha fact a MISSILE WILL ALWAYS HAVE LESS MASS THEN THE AIRCRAFT.which means it will be always more agile.
It was us Americans who saved europe from Hitler in WW1 and ww2 and cominusts.we gave you a trillion dollars in the marshall plan to rebuild europe after hitler destroyed you.we own you people.
Also thrust vectored missiles exist too meaning it's even harder to dodge them as cpu's advance even more.
your claim that you can dodge bullets from anti-craft fire is the most absurd.
bullets hit you and then you realize you have been hit.you cannot know where or when they are going to hit.
also you have still not replied to point 2 repeated twice above as you know this is the killer point that defeats all your arguments.
also you claim to be able to dodge missiles but you ignore tha fact a MISSILE WILL ALWAYS HAVE LESS MASS THEN THE AIRCRAFT.which means it will be always more agile.
simply shoot the missiles in the general direction of the enemy.by using pointable missiles.
The reason we still make aircraft maneuverable is I think, from the lessons learnt in Vietnam. The F-4 Phantom was a flying brick and although it had fairly long range missiles, it could still be shot down by more maneuverable MIGS if they got close enough. Another reason we make planes maneuverable is so we can outmaneuver enemy missiles.
Also thrust vectored missiles exist too meaning it's even harder to dodge them as cpu's advance even more.
your claim that you can dodge bullets from anti-craft fire is the most absurd.
Originally posted by esecallum
It was us Americans who saved europe from Hitler in WW1 and ww2 and cominusts.we gave you a trillion dollars in the marshall plan to rebuild europe after hitler destroyed you.we own you people.
[edit on 16-8-2007 by esecallum]
Originally posted by esecallum
It was us Americans who saved europe from Hitler in WW1 and ww2 and cominusts.we gave you a trillion dollars in the marshall plan to rebuild europe after hitler destroyed you.we own you people.
[edit on 16-8-2007 by esecallum]
You have nothing to apologise for intelgurl. While we can all find fault with each others country, statements like our thread authors are not made or taken seriously by any informed rational person. Even by us southern colonialists and Euro's who still owe for all the lend lease gear we borrowed (and later sank in the Pacific, 50 miles off Sydney) and didn't pay for.
Originally posted by intelgurl
I would like to apologize for this statement - nothing embarasses me more here on ATS than attitudes such as this.
Please know that this is not the sentiment of all Americans, not even all politically conservative/Republican voting Americans.
We have esecallum and you said BOTH things, here is what you said.
Originally posted by esecallum
Originally posted by apex
Originally posted by C0bzz
Esecallum why would you need a turret that shoots missiles if YOUR PLANE IS ALREADY FACING THE ENEMY AIRCRAFT!?
I never said any such thing.
read the thread title.
i said you dont need to rotate the aircraft and do fancy dogfights and simply shoot the missiles in the general direction of the enemy.by using pointable missiles.
learn to read what i said.
And then you said this...
instead of all this nonsense of dogfights and maneovering of the aircraft and getting behind the enemy aircraft to shoot it down or lock missiles on it...why not
just makes the air to air missiles steerable and pointable instead...?
just makes the missiles on the pylons pointable on rotatable pylons.
point and shoot the missile.THAT'S IT.
And you said it again here..
THE MISSILES can be fired from a bulbous rotating turret in much the same way as www2 bombers had them...
or as in like revolver type turret...endless possibilities..
the missile would be shot out just like a bullet using compressed air out of the turret barrels pointing at the target
Now are you going to deny that you said that? It was you who brought up the idea of a turret in your second post waaayy back on Page 1 of this thread, no one else, just you, we have just replied to what you have said.
the missiles are simply put into a disc shaped turret.
to fire one the disc shaped turret pops out for 1 second shoots the missile at the target and pops into the airframe flush with the surface.
JUST LIKE THE STEALTH BOMBER which does a very similar thing with missiles.
THAT my friend IS the PROBLEM. You do not address people's replies individually, you put it all together in a disjointed fashion that is difficult to understand.
WHEN I REPLY,I REPLY TO EVERYONE.
This is EXACTLY what I am talking about immediately above. WHO are you talking to? Do they have a name? who was the "other" person? Little wonder if they did wrongly accuse you. PLEASE USE OUR NAMES!!!!!
including the person who was wrong.
the other person who claims i wronged him did not read the preceding post and so wrongly accused me of addressing him.
Ahhh... that was probably me when I stated that English was possibly not your first language. I didn't accuse you of being a foreigner, and if you were so what? I am a foreigner because I am not an American. The fact that your sentences, grammar, syntax and spelling are not what most people would expect from someone who is a fluent native speaker of English, is the reason I said this. The fact that you have just spelt "foreigner" as "foriegner" is an example. The fact that you hold US citizenship, live in Montana and are caucasian doesn't mean you are born there or learnt English first. Not that this matters, I am just trying to illustrate the point. If you dont believe me look at your own posts and then look at those of people like myself, Darkpr0 or waynos for example. See any major difference? I have asked you before to PLEASE put your posts into sentence and paragraph form for a good reason. So we can understand what you mean, and to whom you are talking.
you also accused me of being a foriegner.
I am American.
i live in Helena,Montana.
i am white.
I AM proud to be American.
Again, WHO is "YOU"? Who are you talking to? What is their name? And what is, "point 2 repeated twice above"? In which of your many posts is it? If its the bit about the man falling out of the airplane it WAS covered by someone.
also you have still not replied to point 2 repeated twice above as you know this is the killer point that defeats all your arguments.
Originally posted by cyberdude78
Sorry to jump in real late, but I figured I may as well throw my own two cents in.
Concerning the whole idea of X,Y,Z vector stuff, perhaps a rather simplified example is needed. When driving in a car let's say you're driving north, and then you make a left turn so that you're going west. During that turn you aren't actually going in two directions at once, instead you're going in the direction known as northwest, which is in between the direction you were in, and the direction you're turning in.
On to missiles tumbling or being blown to pieces. Let's again use the car as a way of simplifying this for those of us who don't know a ton about aerodynamics. Let's say you're driving along at 55 mph going north(in a 55 mph zone of course), and you shoot a nerf gun out the window to the east (passenger side of course, don't want to hit any other cars, at least here in the States where we drive on the right side). According to the pro-turret theory, the Nerf gun should fire in a straight path going east, and the fins on the Nerf dart should stabilize it. However because the Nerf gun was traveling at 55mph north, the Nerf dart will still have some of that momentum. Thus the dart will go northeast, but not really in a nice path. Remember that the momentum will essentially cause it to suffer from a 55 mph broadside from the wind on it's left side, which is more than a Nerf dart can handle. Therefore the dart will tumble, and probably won't hit the intended target.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've got the right idea here.
Ummm... I NEVER was even involved in the discussion about the "man falling out of an aeroplane" , so I don't see how this can defeat any of my FACTS(arguments).
Originally posted by esecallum[/i
To Lee.
Yes you have ignored the man falling out of the plane as YOU KNOW this would defeat all your arguements.
esecallum next time you are a passenger in a car on a freeway and going fast, I want you to do the following: wind down the widow and slowly put your hand out until you feel the wind. Now turn your hand so that your palm faces forward. Now tell me what happens. Does your hand start to get blown backwards and you have to force it to stay in the same position? The answer is YES. Now multiply that affect about ten fold and it is these forces that are going to affect your missile. Even the simple act of turning your hand from edge on to palm on, affects how much air resistance will be felt. THAT is what is the problem with firing a missile sideways, the slipstream.
The missile attached to the plane already EXPERINENCES these forces you claim that suddenly appear out of nowhere when the plane manoevres in dosgfights etc...rotating the missile you or someone else said would tear the misile off.
Now this is plainly a stupid thing to say. Since when does a missile "analyse" two different vectors individually as it travels? The answer is never, that defeats the known laws of physics and rational commonsense.
The man falling out of the plane travels in a RESULTANT DIRECTION but if you analyse the individual x, y components of the resultant velocity you will get separate values in the x and y directions and HENCE SEPARATE X AND Y FORCES TOO.
Originally posted by thebozeian
Now this is plainly a stupid thing to say. Since when does a missile "analyse" two different vectors individually as it travels? The answer is never, that defeats the known laws of physics and rational commonsense.
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by thebozeian
Now this is plainly a stupid thing to say. Since when does a missile "analyse" two different vectors individually as it travels? The answer is never, that defeats the known laws of physics and rational commonsense.
You're right, it doesn't. It analyzes three. It's guidance and navigation system is going to break things down to the three unit vectors for velocity, and calculate position in the x,y and z and most likely using the Euler Angles or quaternions do a RSS error calculation on where it is relatively to where it should be and then make a course correction (in all three directions) based on those error calculations....repeatedly.
Originally posted by esecallum
xyz vectors prove that u can move in 2 directions or 3 at the same time.
i will give you an example.
suppose someone jumps from a plane at say 10000 metres travelling at say 500 mph going west.
the person will have 2 velocity vectors ON LEAVING THE PLANE.
downward at v=gt and westword at 500 mpg.
Originally posted by esecallum
Yes you have ignored the man falling out of the plane as YOU KNOW this would defeat all your arguements.
The missile attached to the plane already EXPERINENCES these forces you claim that suddenly appear out of nowhere when the plane manoevres in dosgfights etc...rotating the missile you or someone else said would tear the misile off.
You continue to have a one-on-one conversation with Darkpr0 completely ignoring everyone else who is putting forth information. Why is that? Is it because YOU know that YOU are wrong and will so ignore others around you whilst only conversing with one member in the hopes that people will see you as addressing other's arguments?
It was us Americans who saved europe from Hitler in WW1 and ww2 and cominusts.we gave you a trillion dollars in the marshall plan to rebuild europe after hitler destroyed you.we own you people.
Originally posted by esecallum
Cyberdude you seem to forget that the gun and bullet is traveling WITH the car at the SAME SPEED.
Originally posted by cyberdude78
Originally posted by esecallum
Cyberdude you seem to forget that the gun and bullet is traveling WITH the car at the SAME SPEED.
Actually the fact that it's traveling with the car at the same speed is what accounts for the bit where it gets broadsided by the wind at 55mph. Because the nerf dart in this case was traveling at 55mph when it exits the vehicle it will still be traveling that fast until the wind resistance causes it to loose all that speed since there will no longer be anything propelling it that fast going north in this case.
The thing is, the nerf dart is not designed to travel sideways, and simply cannot remain stable when it's being blasted at 55mph on it's side. Now I think a nerf dart could handle 55mph head on, it won't take it sideways.
Now translate this into a missile on an airplane. Same concept. The missile is a little tougher and a bit more stable than the nerf dart, but it's also traveling at a couple times the speed of sound.
The way to look at this is take the aircrafts speed, and then ask if the missile could still fly properly with that speed being wind, and that wind hitting the side of the missile.