The Wiki pages says top speed is about Mach 4. There are already multiple rockets from US, Russia, and China that can achieve the same (or more) but with a solid-fuel rocket motor. What is the advantage of a ramjet here? It just seems way more complex and much less well tested (in labs and in combat). Also, has this missile (Meteor) been used in any combat scenarios? To be clear, the max speed for any fighter jet is about 2.5 Mach. Once one (or two) of these missiles has locked on, you are done. I read some funny commentary once about how to shoot down a modern fighter jet: Two missiles. They can dodge the first one, but sacrifice so much speed, that the second one can easily find its target.
Missiles versus aircraft is a fight between very high kinetic energy in the missile, and relatively low kinetic energy in the plane, but with the ability to generate more kinetic energy. Missiles don't have a lot of fuel, so they need to generate a lot of kinetic energy to still be effective by the time they reach the target. Typically a missile will accelerate to its top speed in the first few seconds of flight and coast the rest of the way. At very long ranges, all the energy generated when launched has bled off, so there's two common solutions for long-range missiles to generate more energy: a "dual pulse" motor is basically a second rocket motor that fires later in the course; or a ramjet, which can be throttled up and down and is more fuel efficient than a rocket engine.
A ramjet drastically increases range against maneuvering targets. The 'maximum range' quoted for missiles like the AIM-120D (Likely 140-170km) is normally for a front on shot at extremely high altitude (10-15km+) with no evasive actions. With an evading target the No Escape Zone (where a target likely can't kinetically evade the missile) will only be 15-25km.
The Meteor has a longer sustainer and a terminal boost meaning that the No Escape Zone is though to be upwards of 60km. Qatar might have used Meteors to shoot down Iranian Su 24's just a few months ago based on the range they were shot at.
You really need to play combat flight sims (like DCS) to understand why a ramjet AA missile makes a lot of sense ;)
It's not mainly about top speed, but about endurance (e.g. flying under power for the entire flight time of the missile).
The gist ist that traditional BVR AA missiles are only powered at the start of an engagement (and a lot of that power is used to gain height) until their rocket engine runs out of fuel. For a large part of its flight, traditional AA missiles glide without power towards the target, meaning the missile will lose speed from the moment the rocket engines are switched off, and even more for each required maneuver that needs to be performed afterwards (that's why it is a valid strategy for the targeted airplane to evade the missile by forcing it into a turn during its unpowered flight phase - e.g. instead of doing a 180 and flying straight away from the missile, fly a roughly 90 degree course to the incoming missile to force it into a wide turn, which means the missile will lose more energy than it would when remaining on a straight course).
A ramjet powered missile on the other hand flies under power for the entire engagement, it can 'cruise' towards the target and then for the final phase of the engagement speed up and home in on the target (or generally do complex maneuvers) without losing speed, which gives the target airplane much fewer options to evade the attack.
> I read some funny commentary once about how to shoot down a modern fighter jet: Two missiles. They can dodge the first one, but sacrifice so much speed, that the second one can easily find its target.
With a ramjet missile you don't need a second missile to exploit the target's depleted energy. And the two-missile strategy also doesn't really work when the other aircraft fires a single Meteor from a greater distance first ;)
It's not that simple. If the target aircraft is outside the minimum abort range then they can still evade multiple missiles, regardless of whether the shooting platform or the missiles themselves are locked on. Typically they would do so by descending into denser air and beaming the missile to bleed its limited energy. On larger missiles a ramjet can potentially allow it to retain more energy into the terminal phase.
There are a variety of other defenses including countermeasures, signature reduction, EW, and decoys which also complicate the issue.
Some guys choose to do joruneyman work, but they typically have the option if they're not mute or something. It's a choice ij my experience (They like OT or working alone or hate travel)
Consider the turnover rate as an geometric series.
Also 1 foreman in the electrical field runs effectively 50 guys max if good, and smaller sites might be 10 men to a foreman. I currently have 3 foreman running 5 to 6 guys each at my current company (2 close sites of 3)
It's really not the ratio but the turnover. Guys who aren't making it up into leadership self select after 5 years or so.
The ratios seem unbelievable to those in tech, but I'm just saying you're unlikely to make it to 10 years without having at least the opportunity for some leadership.
> make it to 10 years without having at least the opportunity for some leadership.
Maybe if that person is young and hasn't done real work.
The best ICs are often horrible managers, it's a different career. Same applies idea here. Or just don't want to put up with the bullshit, the fights, the showing up drunk to work, or missing tools, etc.
> Meanwhile every MacOS thread is filled with people complaining how everything is broken and only getting worse.
Having been using Macs for work and home use for the last few years, I have to say you’re right. And yet, in spite of that, I’d still rather use MacOS over Windows. The fans on my Mac never start spinning up as soon as the login screen appears or randomly when it’s sitting untouched on my desk, I never find MacOS to have rebooted in the middle of the night without asking me, it doesn’t constantly nag me to use iCloud more, and it never shows ads for Apple shit in Finder.
When I use MacOS, the worst I feel is the developers are a bit sloppy. When I use Windows, I feel like the developers actively hate me.
Apple is in the process of fixing Tahoe which was a regression from Sequoia the previous release. Tahoe is decent with 26.4 though from what I am hearing. Either OS version is far far better than regular Windows 11 though.
Apple’s real differentiator is their silicon. M series chips are just incredibly good and you get a full workday out of them on battery.
The M1 Pro I still have at work is easily the best laptop I have ever used. For side projects I use an M4 air with maxed out RAM and it has no issues with anything I have thrown at it.
I'm also still on my M1 and I just don't see a need to upgrade. I've never owned a laptop this long without even considering getting a new one. It's still so fast, so cool, great screen, biometric unlocking... it's just incredible.
And if there are aliens? I'm being serious. Why does it have to be human intent?
And I think it is entirely feasible that at some point -- how far away, I don't know -- AI becomes superior to us in its appreciation of life and living.
Yeah sure, 35 miles is totally realistic for the average American. Sorry I was too lazy to double check the spelling of frappuccino when it didn't auto-correct on my phone, I'm sure that made it really difficult to tell what I was talking about!
People have the right to be greedy capricious dickheads with the property (physical, intellectual, and real) that they own and you are infringing on that right.
Like, they can write the best and most entertaining video game of all time, one that makes you pass out if not almost die from joy, and they have the right to sell only a single copy for $10 quadrillion and sue the shit out of anyone who plays it without their permission.
And there is no right, or need, to play a video game as far as I'm aware.
None of what you described is a moral downside. Yes, people already admit that it is illegal to engage in copyright infringement regarding stuff that it is impossible to buy in the first place.
That has little to do with the fact that it does not contain any moral downsides to doing that.
> People have the right to be greedy capricious dickheads with the property (physical, intellectual, and real) that they own and you are infringing on that right.
IMO they shouldn't - not for intellectual property.
Look, IP laws like Copyright make a lot of sense when we're encouraging innovative and rewarding companies for putting something unique and desirable on the market.
But if it's not on the market, there's nothing to incentivize or protect. Then it just becomes hoarding, or, more often - using IP as leverage to artificially inflate the value of it. Basically, you can not sell things, thereby making the thing more scarce on purpose, so later on you can maybe scrape more cash.
This sucks. It's bad for consumers, it's bad for markets. So, maybe we should consider disincentivizing this.
Proposal: if you do not sell copyrighted material, you forfeit the copyright. You keep all the protections and incentives of copyright. But! You essentially legalize pirating old shit or you force companies to put their money where their mouth is and distribute said old shit.
If this old shit is truly a harm to someone's bottom line, then uh, you need to be selling it. Otherwise there's no bottom line to harm.
> People have the right to be greedy capricious dickheads with the property (physical, intellectual, and real) that they own and you are infringing on that right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile)
reply