For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

[DDE]

Pretty controversial question!

Why are poisonous parts or products of organisms considered biological weapons?

Quote

(1) CBRN hazards are CBRN materials that could create adverse effects if released or disseminated accidentally, deliberately, or even naturally. They include TIMs (including toxic industrial chemicals [TICs], toxic industrial biologicals [TIBs], and toxic industrial radiologicals [TIRs]), chemical and biological agents, biological pathogens that result in the spread of infectious disease and radioactive material, and those hazards resulting from the employment of WMD or encountered by the Armed Forces of the United States or multinational forces during military operations.
(a) Chemical hazards include any toxic chemical manufactured, used, transported, or stored which can cause death or other harm through exposure. This includes chemical weapon agents and chemicals developed or manufactured for use in industrial operations or research that pose a hazard, collectively characterized as TIC.
(b) Biological hazards include any organism, or substance derived from an organism, that poses a threat to the health of any living organism. Biological hazards are a threat to conducting military operations. This can include medical waste, samples of a microorganism, virus, or toxin (from a biological source) that can impact human health and spread infectious disease. Biological material that is manufactured, used, transported, or stored by industrial, medical, or commercial processes, which could pose an infectious or toxic threat, are collectively characterized as TIB.

Source: Joint Doctrine for Operations in Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Environments

[magnemoe]

6 hours ago, DDE said:

Pretty controversial question!

Why are poisonous parts or products of organisms considered biological weapons?

Source: Joint Doctrine for Operations in Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Environments

Assume its because organism could be alive or not in many settings

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, DDE said:

(b) Biological hazards include any organism, or substance derived from an organism, that poses a threat to the health of any living organism.

Because they didn't read right, correct, and proper Soviet books about NBC and Civil Defence leaflets, where all biological toxines are always in the "C" chapter, while "B" one is about infections and their insect friends.

Just understand and forgive.

[ARS]

Could you detect a stealth aircraft like B2 or F117 if it's dumb enough to fly directly in front of radar dish at close range? (as much as it basically blocks the entire scanning beam emitted from that radar) If it's so, does it mean the "stealth" part only effective at long range radar scan?

[kerbiloid]

Isn't the whole stealth theme about shortening of the detection range?

5 hours ago, ARS said:

Could you detect a stealth aircraft like B2 or F117 if it's dumb enough to fly directly in front of radar dish at close range? (as much as it basically blocks the entire scanning beam emitted from that radar)

"WTH... Look, when our radar points in this direction, we have our beam lost!"
"Oh, some dumbdonkey has parked his stealth next to our radar, again. Go, kick him."
"Hey, you! Move you stealth away, people can't do their job here!"

[magnemoe]

10 hours ago, ARS said:

Could you detect a stealth aircraft like B2 or F117 if it's dumb enough to fly directly in front of radar dish at close range? (as much as it basically blocks the entire scanning beam emitted from that radar) If it's so, does it mean the "stealth" part only effective at long range radar scan?

Stealth is more like camouflage clothing and an ring of invisibility, way less of the signal is returned so you can get much closer. Its also level of stealth, the B-1 bomber is pretty stealthy compared to an plane of similar size but not seen as an stealth plane. F-35 is less stealthy than the F-22 because of cost and maintenance constrains. 

Its also depend on the radar type and strength, quite possible the search radar can find the plane but the missile can not lock on as its radar or receiver is much smaller. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

the missile can not lock on as its radar or receiver is much smaller. 

Semi-active missiles can

[magnemoe]

56 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

Semi-active missiles can

Or semi-active mode, still less sensitive than the search radar receiver. Now you could radio guide the missile until it get close enough but this is more clunky. 

Another factor is that stealth depend on direction, strongest from front, weakest from rear and above. 

[kerbiloid]

So, by filling the battlefield with sensors and by integrating them into a network, they are killing the idea of a stealth plane itself.

An anti-aircraft smartphone network. The stealth flies, the phones auto-text to the anti-aircraft station its position.

Edited June 23, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Shpaget]

I just went to bed and had a most disturbing train of thought. I probably won't be able to fall asleep until I resolve this, so I'm here to ask for input.

In the the term "thinktank", does the "tank" part mean something like a container (as in fish tank) or the armored and armed combat vehicle?

Both could work.

[Superfluous J]

50 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

I just went to bed and had a most disturbing train of thought. I probably won't be able to fall asleep until I resolve this, so I'm here to ask for input.

In the the term "thinktank", does the "tank" part mean something like a container (as in fish tank) or the armored and armed combat vehicle?

Both could work.

I think it's more like the idea of an aquatic tank that generates some form of consumable, like a water cistern or even a lobster tank at a restaurant. It sits there and the consumable (water, lobsters, ideas) come out.

[magnemoe]

18 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

So, by filling the battlefield with sensors and by integrating them into a network, they are killing the idea of a stealth plane itself.

An anti-aircraft smartphone network. The stealth flies, the phones auto-text to the anti-aircraft station its position.

Yes and no, you would need radars or at least sensitive receiving antennas spread over an area. Still its one of the best ways to counter stealth but probably pretty easy to jam unless you use lots of radars who is expensive but also give more radar coverage. This also require an very good integrated air defense. 

[ARS]

Is it practical to have 2 thrusters in 1 thrust vectoring nozzle? Does it increase the thrust vectoring capabilities? (For example, take one of F-22's nozzle, make it wider, then jam another engine inside. So in other words, an aircraft with one wide engine nozzle with thrust vectoring capabilities housing two thrusters inside)

[Racescort666]

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Yes and no, you would need radars or at least sensitive receiving antennas spread over an area. Still its one of the best ways to counter stealth but probably pretty easy to jam unless you use lots of radars who is expensive but also give more radar coverage. This also require an very good integrated air defense. 

This is more or less the stealth arms race in a nutshell. You can’t make something truly invisible to radar, the idea is to get as close as practical so that the currently (and near future) fielded radars lose their usability. Radar technology catches up, then the next generation of aircraft are fielded and it’s a cycle.

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, Shpaget said:

In the the term "thinktank", does the "tank" part mean something like a container (as in fish tank) or the armored and armed combat vehicle?

This one.

Spoiler

The only way to make those lazy nerds work instead of mucking around.

 

[DDE]

On 6/22/2019 at 1:23 AM, ARS said:

Could you detect a stealth aircraft like B2 or F117 if it's dumb enough to fly directly in front of radar dish at close range? (as much as it basically blocks the entire scanning beam emitted from that radar) If it's so, does it mean the "stealth" part only effective at long range radar scan?

In a word, yes.

6 hours ago, ARS said:

Is it practical to have 2 thrusters in 1 thrust vectoring nozzle? Does it increase the thrust vectoring capabilities? (For example, take one of F-22's nozzle, make it wider, then jam another engine inside. So in other words, an aircraft with one wide engine nozzle with thrust vectoring capabilities housing two thrusters inside)

It mostly seems to be a way to reduce radar signature.

[kerbiloid]

12 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Yes and no, you would need radars or at least sensitive receiving antennas spread over an area.

When every fridge is a wireless 5G,  the whole city is a radar.

Edited June 24, 2019 by kerbiloid

[ARS]

6 hours ago, DDE said:

It mostly seems to be a way to reduce radar signature

How it's going to reduce radar signature? Does the "2 thrusters 1 nozzle" have special feature compared to "1 thruster 1 nozzle" in reducing radar signature?

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

When every fridge is a wireless 5G,  the whole city is a radar.

How is this supposed to work? Not only will 5G be power on demand up to phase shifting to get fast links with clients it will be on ground level with loads of fast moving radar reflectors or wildly variable shape known as cars. Now if you get above the plane in link between the city and the plane then yes. Pulling that one off would be hard. Without getting shot down or jammed is another issue. 

[kerbiloid]

3 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

How is this supposed to work? Not only will 5G be power on demand up to phase shifting to get fast links with clients it will be on ground level with loads of fast moving radar reflectors or wildly variable shape known as cars.

A big metal thing is flying in the internet of things area full of radiolinks and is not on FlightRadar24.

[magnemoe]

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

A big metal thing is flying in the internet of things area full of radiolinks and is not on FlightRadar24.

No its an low reflective plane who is either +12 km up or coming in fast and low. 
You does not know all the reflections from cars who reflect against other cars and buildings. Note that an bisycle would have larger radar signature if put in the place of the stealth plane. 
Instead its on an metal overpass 100 meter from the transmitter 
You have an white noise field but the variation is many magnitudes higher than target reflection. Yes over some weeks it would even out and you might get an indication. 

This is very much an it works for spherical cows in vacuum, science. 
Now using an single rare and longer frequency carrier it might work, more power always works, its can also be used to reduce the pigeon problem,. 

[kerbiloid]

12 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

No its an low reflective plane who is either +12 km up or coming in fast and low. 

So, a moving source of interference moving in a straight line at more or less known altitude and known velocity ~900 km/h +/-.

12 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

You does not know all the reflections from cars who reflect against other cars and buildings. Note that an bisycle would have larger radar signature if put in the place of the stealth plane. 

They are on ground, and don't move at 900 km/h and in a straight line.

12 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Instead its on an metal overpass 100 meter from the transmitter 

When the transmitter is a city-sized netwotk you can ignore the short-term 100 m interferences, while the stealth is long-term, you should filter it out from the short-term noise.

P.S.
Another funny moment: the plane can also contain IoT things, and they may try to connect to the ground or vice versa.

Edited June 24, 2019 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

So, a moving source of interference moving in a straight line at more or less known altitude and known velocity ~900 km/h +/-.

They are on ground, and don't move at 900 km/h and in a straight line.

When the transmitter is a city-sized netwotk you can ignore the short-term 100 m interferences, while the stealth is long-term, you should filter it out from the short-term noise.

The signal strength will be variable, both in intensity and direction from each transmitter, yes this can theoretically be accounted for.  how much is reflected upward in who direction will depend a lot on ground level reflections there an decent faction will be variable because of traffic, and far from all is short term as cars stops or park. High power lower frequency broadcasts would be more useful. 

[DDE]

6 hours ago, ARS said:

How it's going to reduce radar signature? Does the "2 thrusters 1 nozzle" have special feature compared to "1 thruster 1 nozzle" in reducing radar signature?

It's a flat surface rather than several angles or, God forbid, a curve.

[ARS]

Is it feasible to create a reusable railgun that addressed the heat and rail durability problem by making the railgun projectile packed with single-use rails in one package? With the actual barrel seen outside being coilgun accelerators? Essentially, a railgun "shell" is a self-contained single-use railgun designed to fire the projectile to attain initial velocity into the barrel before being accelerated by accelerator coils inside the barrel. In theory, this makes the railgun cheaper to maintain by eliminating the need for expensive alloys for reusable accelerator rails since the rails on the shell is intended to be single use