Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 30-08-2011, 14:26   #61
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between the devil and the deep blue sea
Boat: a sailing boat
Posts: 17,314
Re: GPS Stops Working ? No Problem - We Have GLONASS . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamante View Post
One last shot at this worn-out topic. (...)

Reality is somewhat different, however. Here is the Wiki entry on this:

“A common urban legend states that, faced with the fact that ball-point (...)
! Whoa. Maybe one last, but a good one too, mate!

THX
b.
__________________

__________________
barnakiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-08-2011, 14:33   #62
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between the devil and the deep blue sea
Boat: a sailing boat
Posts: 17,314
Re: GPS Stops Working ? No Problem - We Have GLONASS . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by goboatingnow View Post
Ooh scary "some disastrous misfortune" sounds like a bogey man story to me.

Dave
OK. Say a CME like the one in 1859?

b.
__________________

__________________
barnakiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-08-2011, 14:40   #63
Nearly an old salt
 
goboatingnow's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,649
Images: 3
Re: GPS Stops Working ? No Problem - We Have GLONASS . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by barnakiel View Post
OK. Say a CME like the one in 1859?

b.
Thats the last one, so no real world study of its effects on satellites!!.

We will see?

Dave
__________________
Check out my new blog on smart boat technology, networking and gadgets for the connected sailor! - http://smartboats.tumblr.com
goboatingnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-08-2011, 14:50   #64
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between the devil and the deep blue sea
Boat: a sailing boat
Posts: 17,314
Re: GPS Stops Working ? No Problem - We Have GLONASS . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by goboatingnow View Post
Thats the last one, so no real world study of its effects on satellites!!.

We will see?

Dave
We may. They say the Sun is entering a new active phase and they say above normal intensity is expected. They are them scientists.

As I said I am glad Garmin made a cheapo unit that has the capacity. As soon as the system is up and running I am going to get one and see how it delivers.

b.
__________________
barnakiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2011, 05:37   #65
Nearly an old salt
 
goboatingnow's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,649
Images: 3
Re: GPS Stops Working ? No Problem - We Have GLONASS . . .

just an very incomplete list

List of Russian inventors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some great some small,

It really is a sign of "little westerner" mentality to under play very significant advances made over the many years in Russia and the former USSR. Just because the US invented the "toaster oven" doesn't mean that others didn't invent equally useful things like say Diode Lasers ( Dmitri Garbuzov )

Dave
__________________
Check out my new blog on smart boat technology, networking and gadgets for the connected sailor! - http://smartboats.tumblr.com
goboatingnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2011, 07:53   #66
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cowes (Winter), Baltic (Summer) (the boat!); somewhere in the air (me!)
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 19,751
Re: GPS Stops Working ? No Problem - We Have GLONASS . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamante View Post
I suspect you know that the Russian Sloika RDS-6 bomb was not considered a true H-bomb in that 80% of the released energy came from fission, not fusion. It was a dead-end design never adopted by anyone, including the Russians. The Soviets did not explode their first true H-bomb until Nov. 22, 1955, two years after the US test.
The Russian Sloika bomb -- "layer cake" -- was a dead end, but so was our test 6 months prior -- "Mike". These were all experiments. Unlike Mike, however, Sloika was a usable, deliverable weapon, so in a certain since more advanced than Mike. The proportion of energy derived from fusion is irrelevant -- that was not the purpose of the tests. The purpose was to achieve a fusion explosion, which was achieved. By the way, modern nuclear weapons usually derive half or less of their energy from the fusion reaction, so Sloika was nothing unusual in that respect.

Anyway, the point was not any of that -- my point was to refute yours, which was that the Soviets merely copied everything and never had an original thought or design of their own. That is manifestly untrue, and this example makes a good case -- Sloika was a completely original design which had nothing to do with any of our hydrogen bomb designs. Where nuclear weapons were concerned, the Soviets were just as strong as we were in all areas -- basic science, design, production. What you wrote bears no resemblance to reality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamante View Post
However, as a common theme running through your reply, it is the prerogative of a Russophile propagandist (sorry) to often prefer denial to reality.
A strong logical argument -- thanks for the debating tip.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamante View Post
Beautifully illustrates my point – in a complex system it ALL has to work right! So instead of perfecting the complex system, as the Merkins did, the Soviets just “decided not to mess with it”. LOL!.
It does not illustrate your point. The booster was certainly the thing the Soviets would have been able to do in their sleep. The Soviet scientific establishment was vehemently against wasting money on landing men on the moon, and the abortive manned moon exploration project was imposed on them by the Politburo for political purposes. They finally won their fight against the Politburo after the N1 booster failures -- which were exactly used as an excuse to concentrate on the robotic missions.

What is ironic in all of this is that the Soviet space program, much more so than our space program, was run by dreamers like Korolev (and inspired by the ultimate space dreamer Tsiolkovksy). They were real wackos, actually -- Cosmists (Russian cosmism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). So Tsiolkovsky, while having all of the basic mathematical and scientific insights which made space flight possible -- doing all of the hard science -- at the same time could write things like "The Will of the Universe", a bizarre philosophical idea that all matter even at the level of atoms has will.

Korolev was also a Cosmist who considered colonizing space to be some kind of imperative of history -- but he didn't want to put men on the moon. He thought it was a useless stunt. He wanted to do the initial exploration robotically then start sending people only when mankind is technologically ready to actually colonize space -- starting with Mars. That's why Russian manned space flight was always concentrated on space stations -- which of course is another area where what they did far surpassed what we did.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamante View Post
I am incredulous how anyone with an objective mind can possibly begin to compare the complexity of a robotic space program with the requirements of a manned landing and return program. There are orders and orders of magnitude of difference in the requirements.
Orders and orders of magnitude? Do you know what that means? Three orders of magnitude more than a million components in a system makes a billion components. I assume you are not being literal here.

But this is wrong in any case. The difference between manned and robotic space flight is the difference between automatic and autonomous (since there can be no instantaneous communication over the distances involved) flight and mission control, on the one hand, and life support systems, on the other. Bottles of oxygen, water tanks, air-tight hatches -- are not "orders and orders of magnitude" more complex than automatic flight controls -- and certainly not autonomous flight control. Rather the other way around.

Robotic space flight is more complex than manned space flight, certainly in the 1960's it was, with our much less well developed computer technologies of the time (and artificial intelligence was barely more than an idea at that time -- and some of the first practical AI systems were invented exactly by the Soviets for their autonomous flight control systems).

But manned space flight is more expensive -- because the mass and volume of what you have to put up is much greater. Hence the vast expense of the Apollo program.

Let me say again, in case anyone should make the mistake of thinking I am a "Russophile propagandist" -- I think the Apollo program was absolutely fantastic, a fabulous national adventure, worth every penny we spent on it. Watching it on TV is one of the most vivid memories I have of my childhood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamante View Post
The Russian Luna program was excellent, but it was also replete with failures. .
Yes you are right -- I was quoting from memory and was mistaken. There were lots of failures, and many of them were covered up by the Soviets (they didn't give mission numbers to failed missions).

In general, however, you have to remember Soviet (and now Russian) spacecraft were and are more reliable than ours, and and the Soviets launched more people with fewer deaths than we did. 17 astronauts have died in two Shuttle disasters plus the Apollo 1 fire, and 4 cosmonauts have died in various accidents, none since 1971. As of today, the US has no capability to put people into space.

For booster reliability, see: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/reliability2010.txt


Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamante View Post
Yes, it was in many ways a propagandistic stunt, but that doesn’t in any way diminish the American achievement in executing the successful manned lunar landings. To illustrate the magnitude of this achievement, it is interesting to note that to this day a significant percentage of people in many countries simply don’t believe that the lunar landings actually happened.
I entirely agree. There's nothing wrong with a great adventure, giving great PR for the country. Probably the best use of taxpayer money of the 1960's, in my opinion. If we had figured out how to sell the worldwide TV rights, we probably could have funded it out of that.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamante View Post
Sorry, counselor, you have failed to support your case convincingly. Do not claim prejudice until you have submitted more persuasive arguments.

Such as? Based on real-life performances and market demand, the Russian airliners and fighter jets don’t appear to be at all competitive with their Western counterparts..
This is nonsense, at least concerning fighter jets and other military hardware. You should really read up on this before posting this stuff. Russia sells $5 to $6 billion dollars of weapons systems every year, about the same as the US. (Arms industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). There have been years where Russia was the world's no. 1 exporter of weapons, ahead of the US. Russia's main military exports are main battle tanks, military aircraft, radar systems, missiles. The Sukhoi-27 family of advanced fighter-bombers has been the world's no. 1 selling military aircraft for most of the last decade. It is expensive (overpriced because of the overvalued Russian ruble), but it outperforms anything you can buy from us so far (in war games, the Su-31 is considered to be worth 1.6 F15's and 1.4 F18's). It is operated by the airforces of a dozen countries who are certainly no clients of Russia -- India, Indonesia, Malaysia, China -- to name a few.

USAF doctrine on hostile encounters with Su-27's or Su-30's can be summed up as "for God's sake don't let one get within visual range. Even an F22 (overall a much superior and much more advanced aircraft, of course, than a Su30) is at a disadvantage in a dogfight. Fortunately, we have better radars and missiles than the Russians, and much better trained pilots, but that's a different conversation already.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamante View Post
Outside of Russia and their natural client states, none of those products have a meaningful economic penetration – other than the Kalashnikov rifle, perhaps. ..
As far as I know, Russia doesn't export Kalashnikov rifles at all -- they are too expensive to produce in Russia. The AK-47's and 74's beloved in third-world countries are made in China. More than 50% of Russian arms exports by value are military aircraft.

And Russia doesn't have any "client states". India and China are Russia's two largest purchasers of arms.
__________________
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2011, 09:28   #67
Marine Service Provider

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: north carolina
Boat: command yachtsdouglas32
Posts: 3,113
Re: GPS Stops Working ? No Problem - We Have GLONASS . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamante View Post
I suspect you know that the Russian Sloika RDS-6 bomb was not considered a true H-bomb in that 80% of the released energy came from fission, not fusion. It was a dead-end design never adopted by anyone, including the Russians. The Soviets did not explode their first true H-bomb until Nov. 22, 1955, two years after the US test.

So that is reality. However, as a common theme running through your reply, it is the prerogative of a Russophile propagandist (sorry) to often prefer denial to reality. For everyone else, it’s just misleading information that does not contribute to an objective debate. May as well engage in a dead-horse-beating contest.

Beautifully illustrates my point – in a complex system it ALL has to work right! So instead of perfecting the complex system, as the Merkins did, the Soviets just “decided not to mess with it”. LOL!

I am incredulous how anyone with an objective mind can possibly begin to compare the complexity of a robotic space program with the requirements of a manned landing and return program. There are orders and orders of magnitude of difference in the requirements.

The Russian Luna program was excellent, but it was also replete with failures. Claiming that only one out of 20 missions failed is utterly disingenuous. Just look at the complete listing at Wiki – there were around 45 missions and perhaps half of them ended in failures. I suppose one can afford that kind of a miserable success percentage in an unmanned program, but it would be unthinkable to apply it to a manned program.


Yes, it was in many ways a propagandistic stunt, but that doesn’t in any way diminish the American achievement in executing the successful manned lunar landings. To illustrate the magnitude of this achievement, it is interesting to note that to this day a significant percentage of people in many countries simply don’t believe that the lunar landings actually happened.

I am absolutely in favor of unmanned robotic probes, especially those oriented toward the exploration of the Earth and its environs. At this point I don’t see any compelling need for manned missions, outside of tourism perhaps.

I guess it’s the old reading comprehension failure again – we are discussing the Russian technological contributions over the LAST 50 YEARS. Dredging up Popov, Zworykin, Sikorsky et al., is a meaningless off-topic argumentation. Might as well bring up Mendeleev, as the other poster did. BTW, Zworykin also “did it in immigration in the US”, so his achievements would not be germane to this debate anyway. Plus it was way more than 50 years ago.

And wait, so the Russians invented reinforced concrete in the last 50 years? Arc-welding? Punch cards? This is starting to sound like the old classic “iz true, all inwented in Russia” joke.

Sorry, counselor, you have failed to support your case convincingly. Do not claim prejudice until you have submitted more persuasive arguments.

Such as? Based on real-life performances and market demand, the Russian airliners and fighter jets don’t appear to be at all competitive with their Western counterparts.

Outside of Russia and their natural client states, none of those products have a meaningful economic penetration – other than the Kalashnikov rifle, perhaps. The world capitalist is by-and-large an apolitical creature and tends to naturally gravitate toward the better, the more efficient, the more economical – all in the holy quest to make the most money. That’s the ultimate proof in the pudding. Despite indignant protestation and a litany of obscure arguments, Russian technological products simply do not have a significant enough presence in the world economy to demonstrate any notable technological competence. That’s today’s reality… let's hope that will change in the future.

In any case, this is a dead-horse topic, an utter waste of time. So you may have the last word.
Hear ,Hear I second the motian to enter this as true and diffinetive! Yea ,they make a good rifle...so what! Cant wait to see what China comes up with in the next 20 yrs.
__________________
tropicalescape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2011, 09:41   #68
Marine Service Provider

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: north carolina
Boat: command yachtsdouglas32
Posts: 3,113
Re: GPS Stops Working ? No Problem - We Have GLONASS . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by goboatingnow View Post
just an very incomplete list

List of Russian inventors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some great some small,

It really is a sign of "little westerner" mentality to under play very significant advances made over the many years in Russia and the former USSR. Just because the US invented the "toaster oven" doesn't mean that others didn't invent equally useful things like say Diode Lasers ( Dmitri Garbuzov )

Dave
they made some advances...just didnt advance far enough.I know a man in Jamaica that built a boat out of tree limbs with a predetermend shape and then installed a tribant (soviet era car)3 cyl.engine and when he tried to set sail (twice) he was caught because the damn thing wouldnt run...He couldnt afford a toyota engine...I think he would have made it with a toyota engine.Or maybe a Ford DVC
__________________
tropicalescape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2011, 09:55   #69
Marine Service Provider

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: north carolina
Boat: command yachtsdouglas32
Posts: 3,113
Re: GPS Stops Working ? No Problem - We Have GLONASS . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
The Russian Sloika bomb -- "layer cake" -- was a dead end, but so was our test 6 months prior -- "Mike". These were all experiments. Unlike Mike, however, Sloika was a usable, deliverable weapon, so in a certain since more advanced than Mike. The proportion of energy derived from fusion is irrelevant -- that was not the purpose of the tests. The purpose was to achieve a fusion explosion, which was achieved. By the way, modern nuclear weapons usually derive half or less of their energy from the fusion reaction, so Sloika was nothing unusual in that respect.

Anyway, the point was not any of that -- my point was to refute yours, which was that the Soviets merely copied everything and never had an original thought or design of their own. That is manifestly untrue, and this example makes a good case -- Sloika was a completely original design which had nothing to do with any of our hydrogen bomb designs. Where nuclear weapons were concerned, the Soviets were just as strong as we were in all areas -- basic science, design, production. What you wrote bears no resemblance to reality.




A strong logical argument -- thanks for the debating tip.



It does not illustrate your point. The booster was certainly the thing the Soviets would have been able to do in their sleep. The Soviet scientific establishment was vehemently against wasting money on landing men on the moon, and the abortive manned moon exploration project was imposed on them by the Politburo for political purposes. They finally won their fight against the Politburo after the N1 booster failures -- which were exactly used as an excuse to concentrate on the robotic missions.

What is ironic in all of this is that the Soviet space program, much more so than our space program, was run by dreamers like Korolev (and inspired by the ultimate space dreamer Tsiolkovksy). They were real wackos, actually -- Cosmists (Russian cosmism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). So Tsiolkovsky, while having all of the basic mathematical and scientific insights which made space flight possible -- doing all of the hard science -- at the same time could write things like "The Will of the Universe", a bizarre philosophical idea that all matter even at the level of atoms has will.

Korolev was also a Cosmist who considered colonizing space to be some kind of imperative of history -- but he didn't want to put men on the moon. He thought it was a useless stunt. He wanted to do the initial exploration robotically then start sending people only when mankind is technologically ready to actually colonize space -- starting with Mars. That's why Russian manned space flight was always concentrated on space stations -- which of course is another area where what they did far surpassed what we did.




Orders and orders of magnitude? Do you know what that means? Three orders of magnitude more than a million components in a system makes a billion components. I assume you are not being literal here.

But this is wrong in any case. The difference between manned and robotic space flight is the difference between automatic and autonomous (since there can be no instantaneous communication over the distances involved) flight and mission control, on the one hand, and life support systems, on the other. Bottles of oxygen, water tanks, air-tight hatches -- are not "orders and orders of magnitude" more complex than automatic flight controls -- and certainly not autonomous flight control. Rather the other way around.

Robotic space flight is more complex than manned space flight, certainly in the 1960's it was, with our much less well developed computer technologies of the time (and artificial intelligence was barely more than an idea at that time -- and some of the first practical AI systems were invented exactly by the Soviets for their autonomous flight control systems).

But manned space flight is more expensive -- because the mass and volume of what you have to put up is much greater. Hence the vast expense of the Apollo program.

Let me say again, in case anyone should make the mistake of thinking I am a "Russophile propagandist" -- I think the Apollo program was absolutely fantastic, a fabulous national adventure, worth every penny we spent on it. Watching it on TV is one of the most vivid memories I have of my childhood.



Yes you are right -- I was quoting from memory and was mistaken. There were lots of failures, and many of them were covered up by the Soviets (they didn't give mission numbers to failed missions).

In general, however, you have to remember Soviet (and now Russian) spacecraft were and are more reliable than ours, and and the Soviets launched more people with fewer deaths than we did. 17 astronauts have died in two Shuttle disasters plus the Apollo 1 fire, and 4 cosmonauts have died in various accidents, none since 1971. As of today, the US has no capability to put people into space.

For booster reliability, see: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/reliability2010.txt




I entirely agree. There's nothing wrong with a great adventure, giving great PR for the country. Probably the best use of taxpayer money of the 1960's, in my opinion. If we had figured out how to sell the worldwide TV rights, we probably could have funded it out of that.





This is nonsense, at least concerning fighter jets and other military hardware. You should really read up on this before posting this stuff. Russia sells $5 to $6 billion dollars of weapons systems every year, about the same as the US. (Arms industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). There have been years where Russia was the world's no. 1 exporter of weapons, ahead of the US. Russia's main military exports are main battle tanks, military aircraft, radar systems, missiles. The Sukhoi-27 family of advanced fighter-bombers has been the world's no. 1 selling military aircraft for most of the last decade. It is expensive (overpriced because of the overvalued Russian ruble), but it outperforms anything you can buy from us so far (in war games, the Su-31 is considered to be worth 1.6 F15's and 1.4 F18's). It is operated by the airforces of a dozen countries who are certainly no clients of Russia -- India, Indonesia, Malaysia, China -- to name a few.

USAF doctrine on hostile encounters with Su-27's or Su-30's can be summed up as "for God's sake don't let one get within visual range." See: USAF pilot describes IAF Su-30MKI performance at Red Flag-08 - The DEW Line. Even an F22 (overall a much superior and much more advanced aircraft, of course, than a Su30) is at a disadvantage in a dogfight. Fortunately, we have better radars and missiles than the Russians, and much better trained pilots, but that's a different conversation already.




As far as I know, Russia doesn't export Kalashnikov rifles at all -- they are too expensive to produce in Russia. The AK-47's and 74's beloved in third-world countries are made in China. More than 50% of Russian arms exports by value are military aircraft.

And Russia doesn't have any "client states". India and China are Russia's two largest purchasers of arms.
The YF-22 is perhaps the last of the manned fighters..what do the Russians have to match it or answer the future with? The only reason for russian arms is so that there is a choice..I wouldnt want to fight someone that has the same weapon that I have...that would make the odds to even...give me the advantage anyday.. DVC
__________________
tropicalescape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2011, 09:56   #70
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cowes (Winter), Baltic (Summer) (the boat!); somewhere in the air (me!)
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 19,751
Re: GPS Stops Working ? No Problem - We Have GLONASS . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by tropicalescape View Post
they made some advances...just didnt advance far enough.I know a man in Jamaica that built a boat out of tree limbs with a predetermend shape and then installed a tribant (soviet era car)3 cyl.engine and when he tried to set sail (twice) he was caught because the damn thing wouldnt run...He couldnt afford a toyota engine...I think he would have made it with a toyota engine.Or maybe a Ford DVC
Trabant was a German car. Nothing Russian or Soviet. An extremely crappy, two-cylinder, two-stroke vehicle. Even worse than Russian cars (and that's saying a lot!).
__________________
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2011, 09:58   #71
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cowes (Winter), Baltic (Summer) (the boat!); somewhere in the air (me!)
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 19,751
Re: GPS Stops Working ? No Problem - We Have GLONASS . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by tropicalescape View Post
The YF-22 is perhaps the last of the manned fighters..what do the Russians have to match it or answer the future with? The only reason for russian arms is so that there is a choice..I wouldnt want to fight someone that has the same weapon that I have...that would make the odds to even...give me the advantage anyday.. DVC
The Russians are falling behind in weapons technology -- they lost the whole decade of the 1990's. They don't have a fighter to match the F22 or F35, and the next generation will be unmanned as you said. The point was, however, that their 1980's technology was so good that it is still commercially viable today -- maybe not for much longer, but still impressive.
__________________
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2011, 10:11   #72
Marine Service Provider

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: north carolina
Boat: command yachtsdouglas32
Posts: 3,113
Re: GPS Stops Working ? No Problem - We Have GLONASS . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
Trabant was a German car. An extremely crappy, two-cylinder, two-stroke vehicle. Even worse than Russian cars (and that's saying a lot!).
east-german (soviet union)no wonder he got caught.I put one (2 cyl.) on a heath-parasol ragwing aircraft once and it flew ok ..always fouling plugs..saw a giant scale model P48 Lighting aircraft in CZ Republic once that had 2 of them... went down in flames..builder was a russian I belive..na just kidding..he was Ukarianian..same thing right? I know.. thems fighting words.My personal toughts are that the French make some really nice aircraft..to damn expensive..DVC
__________________
tropicalescape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 07:53   #73
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between the devil and the deep blue sea
Boat: a sailing boat
Posts: 17,314
Re: GPS Stops Working ? No Problem - We Have GLONASS . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post

(...) They don't have a fighter to match the F22 or F35, (...)
No Sukhoi?

b.
__________________
barnakiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 09:11   #74
֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13,056
Re: GPS Stops Working ? No Problem - We Have GLONASS . . .

"but it outperforms anything you can buy from us so far"
Any madam will tell you, one just doesn't put the finest ladies up for sale. Not at all.
Baseball? Same thing, you don't trade your best players away.
Weapons? Really now, who's selling off their front line carriers and submarines?

No, "export quality" doesn't necessarily mean "good" or best. It just means, we're willing to sell this stuff off.

Also bear in mind, US combat aircraft can't operate from less than perfectly clean runways. Foreign objects get ingested and the engines go BOOM! and that's the end of the show. Crude Russian buzzards with gratings over the air intakes? Go airborne instead of BOOM, which makes them better aircraft for many buyers.

And they are less likely to have high-end US electronics packages with remote kill and stun circuits in them. Or don't you think we can remotely shut down some of the things we sell? Even after we neuter them, by selling aircraft--without some of the combat electronics that make them attractive in the first place. That's also routine.

IIRC the Chinese bought two abandoned Soviet or Russian carriers and the second one just went out for seat trials this year, after Chinese completion and upgrades.
__________________
hellosailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 20:45   #75
Nearly an old salt
 
goboatingnow's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,649
Images: 3
What a complete heap of Sh1t this thread has descended into. , arguing the merits of machines designed to kill thousands. Complete rubbish.

Dave
__________________

__________________
Check out my new blog on smart boat technology, networking and gadgets for the connected sailor! - http://smartboats.tumblr.com
goboatingnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
gps

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Furuno 1715 Radar Unit Review kirkalittle Product or Service Reviews & Evaluations 15 28-10-2014 08:51
GPS Signal Interference in US CarlF Navigation 36 19-05-2012 09:13
Raymarine C70 - GPS / Radar Interface Troubleshooting Nashira Marine Electronics 1 25-08-2011 00:36
Route Properties, Missing Functions James Baines OpenCPN 13 13-07-2011 05:31
eMap GPS to OpenCPN 2.3.1 Charts ewanfish Navigation 8 04-07-2011 06:40



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:01.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.