Typhoid

my point exactly. Don't limit the scenario to just Vietnam.

I haven't sent you your what? ???

case in point - when the shuttle broke up on re-entry a lot of stuff made it to the ground, most noteably several intact hydrazine fuel tanks. It was the post accident engineering investigation of that which probably led to the current assessment that the fuel tank of this vehicle may (the stress on may) survive intact. The frames of space vehicles are typically made of titanium for strength as are a number of structural components within the vehicle. There is a lot of aluminum alloys, but its not by any stretch ALL made of aluminum. The fuel tanks are, in fact, generally made of titanium within the satellite vehicles. "And FYI, I am a second year engineering student, and while I don't know everything, I'm certainly not making it up" and I, sir, am a space qualified, retired NFO with an additional decade of direct support engineering operations in support of aerospace defense including space tracking of satellites, tracking of decaying vehicles, space combat ops (SCUDS) in Desert Storm, Ballistic Missile defense developmental simulations and concept development, and a few other interesting events. The space tracking team for the Salyut7 deorbit were under my command. One of the Patriot battalion teams came by The Mountain after DS to award my missile warning team a plaque for providing them the alerting, tracking and look-angle for their engagements. That plaque has a fragment of a SCUD fuel tank mounted on it with the words "This SCUD's for you". I'm not making this up either. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.......

I'm speculating a bit here, but - SM-3 is designed to hit a re-entering warhead in a controlled Re-entry Vehicle (RV). An uncontrolled, tumbling chunk of metal will not be reacting to the atmosphere in a controlled, predictable manner. So they have to hit it exo-atmospheric. The SM-3 is designed to hit an exo-atmospheric RV - in a ballistic arc, not in LEO. So the challenge is to hit this before it re-enters and becomes unpredictable. Problem is, the SM-3 is not designed to go to LEO altitudes which is where this thing still is. So its a narrow window of when the atmospheric drag has slowed and lowered it enough for the SM-3 to be able to reach up and smack it - but not before it has started to tumble and react with the upper-atmosphere in the initial re-entry phase. so its sort of at the boundary layer where the orbital mechanics tracking algorithms are just starting to loose track and the Re-entry tracking algorithms haven't quite started to operate very well yet. which brings up an interesting - and politically intriguing on the international stage - question. Why not "contract the hit out" to those countries like Russia and China that have ABM-ASAT capabilities, or those countries that have "undeclared" ASAT/ABM programs, or use our larger, longer reach ABM system to smack it further up. (scattering additional space debris all over creation no doubt has a lot to do with that.) sort of the international, space arena version of yelling - "PULL"!!

from having tracked many such decaying objects from Cheyenne Mountain in the past (Including Salyut7) - I can say with absolute confidence that this far out we can determine with absolute assurance that it will hit - somewhere on earth..... an uncontrolled orbital decay is really, really tough to determine and not until the orbit decays further and it comes lower will they be able to make any prediction as to even which orbit it may decay in, which will limit which plane of the earth is most threatened. Not until a couple of orbits out - meaning hours - will a prediction with any sort of accuracy be able to be made. absolutely agree.

I think you set in the initial framework a limitation on the dates. If you were to open up the timeframe, you might (or might not) find a broader set of time and scenario beyond Vietnam and/or Arab-Israel. That would be an interesting question to ask. having said that - I think you are on target.

actually they are in pretty good shape. the Russians produced a late model batch in the late '80's and have decommissioned all of their old ones. So the remaining ones are relatively new, haven't been used much, but even when the funding tanked through the floor the LRA had the priority for funding. So those aircraft are actually in very good condition. as you can see in this shot..... as compared to this old, ancient beast...

sigh....... "The entire satillite will be heated to several hudred degress celcius by re-entry and with enter a very violent multi-axis spin sue to iits nonaerodynamic shape. If the space shuttle's aluminium structure gets heated above 300 or so degrees, it becomes pliable enought that it can no longer support the aerodynamic forces of re-entry. Make no mistake, unless they keep the fuel in an safe with steel sides an inch thick, the fuel will either reach it's self-ignition temperature, burst into an easily ignited spray of hydrazine when the fuel tank breaks, or be dispersed so widely as to have no real effect whatsover." -------------------------- you know all this for a fact based on what scientific-engineering analysis? You know for certain that it is all made of aluminum? Pieces of shuttle landed all over the southeast when it broke up on re-entry. Satellite fragments have made it to the surface on many occasions and the debris from this one is expected to be scattered over several hundred miles. The concern on this one is that portions of the satellite, including the fuel tank, might survive. IF it were to survive more or less intact and vent unignited (which is considered a distinct possibility by the ENGINEERS who have worked this issue) then it would be, as USAMFTL has stated, incredibly hazardous within the local area. note - when a Titan II blew up in its silo and vented hydrazine all over the landscape - somehow life went on beyond the immediate downwind area. The danger is an unignited venting within the localized impact point. If it ignites - problem over (unless it ignites as it comes through your roof). so the intent of the shot is to bust up the tank so that it vents and burns up on re-entry in the upper atmosphere. "What's the SOP and TO&E to be used in this type of situation?" this is a first - so no SOP. "Winging it" so to speak. ------------------------ "or be dispersed so widely as to have no real effect whatsover. You are 100% incorrect sir. Hydrazine is deadly. You do not want it burning up in the atmosphere. " ------------------------ you do want it to burn up in the atmosphere. Then it no longer exists. That is the plan. "This particular satellites mass warrents the precautions we are taking. " absolutely correct!! Its a big, solid satellite. "f it were to "ideally" come down in the ocean which is harmless, do they know if it's in area for deep fishing lanes, I mean if the fish ingest that garbage and then people were to consume it" it would disperse and interact with the seawater turning into ammonia and then harmless compounds. Not a danger. "So, will whatever device that will be used to shoot it down render it harmless or not?" if we hit it and bust it up into smaller fragments and fracture the fuel tank, it will be much more harmless. Some components could still survive but it would be much the same as the other fragments of satellites and the shuttle that landed. Not good if it comes through your roof, but overall not much of a threat. Odds are - with 70% of the surface of the earth being ocean, it will land in the ocean with no problem. Of course, it lands in the resevoir that your city drinks from, you might be using bottled water for awhile!

it was a radar ocean surveillance satellite which had a nuclear generator. Usually those were boosted to a high parking orbit at end of life that will last longer than the radioactivity of the nuclear fuel. In that particular case, the boost didn't and it crashed in Canada. if this comes down, it will be something somewhat similar in that the toxic fuel will be localized and cleaned up by hazmat teams. If it comes down in the water, the fuel will oxidize and disperse (although if it lands in the resevoir that you get your drinking water from.....)

only if we bust up the tank before re-entry, which is why we are going to take the shot.

If we miss and it lands upwind of your town, the humor may be lost.....

the fuel is why we are going to "shoot it down". I am presuming (based on past experience) that the intent would be to bust it up into pieces so that on re-entry they are more likely to burn up without reaching the surface. the hydrazine fuel is bad stuff. but beyond a few blocks away would be no threat. Busting it up in space will cause it to burn up/disperse harmlessly. definitely not the end of the world - just the glorious end of that non-functional billion dollar satellite.

back to the good old days! old hat and quite routine. The Russians and us used to play this very serious game for a long, long time. I've somewhere over 50 intercepts and counting the aircraft intercepted/tracked would be several hundred. and yes, they would and will again fly directly over the ship. ops normal.

1. Detailed carrier ops (duh!) 2. High moddability (like SF series) 3. Dynamic campaign (less story-driven) 4. Good performance on older systems 5. High resolution graphics, terrain and effects 6. Seat-switching in multi-seat aircraft 7. Detailed cockpit procedures (switchology) 8. Detailed comms and ATC (realistic Air Intercept Control procedures!!) 9. Story-driven campaign (less dynamic)

count the hanging chads......!

I recently did the same - stepped up bit by bit upgrading my two slots until my "supplier" told me how to optimize the system. the key point is to balance the two slots. It made a HUGE difference when I dropped two 1gig sticks into my two memory slots which balanced the memory slots. Well worth the effort and cost. the second key point is to adjust the memory cache on the hard drive. (on an XP) go to my computer - right click on properties, go to the "advanced" tab, performance - settings, click on the "advanced" tab, under "virtual memory" click on "change" select "custom size" and enter the maximum that your system will allow - on mine it is 4096 on both drives, set and ok. restart to take effect. this made A HUGE difference in overall performance. I also updated my processor to the max my middle-age board could accept. I am now running a 2.4gig processor which provided a little better performance. If your board will accept a faster one - go for it. Second hand processors are dirt cheap.

yes to both. These old systems are still in use by A LOT of countries around the world and how much we know about them, and what our tactics and systems are against them, remain rather sensitive bits of information. We could really put some "interesting" details into the sim - but a fleet of Black Helicopters would come in, smash all of our keyboards and break all of our fingers............

might have been Syrian Intel too.

yes, sir.

only three? tough choice F-14 F-18 Su-27

right. OK, let me step back into a level of generalities and including the broad group of systems. In this SIMULATION what we want to see is the approximate replication of the overall system capabilities of the various weapons. In this regards, there might be something in the tables of capabilties that might not be exactly accurate, but might make the particular weapon perform IN THE SIMULATION roughly equivelant to how the particular weapon performs in real life. Also keep in mind the overall system, not just the particular missile or weapon airframe in question. so, having said that, my suggestion is to keep the EO for several of the radar/command guided SAMs.

not quite. but not willing to discuss here.

wanna bet?

I voted for advanced since you asked for the minimum. In development I would push for the ultimate when designing it so you can implement less and grow with later releases. my sons have a couple of games that they network up at home where one computer is the remote server that carries a lot of the data, and the others network in. I think that fits into your "advanced" column but one advantage of designing that would be the issue now where different loads can't link for MP. The optional remote server might solve that. anyway - my $0.02.

one comment. Don't focus on campaigns or missions. Those can and are being developed all the time by the community here for free. Any such project should focus on the core game engine improvements such as Multi-player, system improvements, etc. In other words, don't spend money on what modders are doing for free.