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 Jeanius
Come on guys, an American fighter pilot probably lost his life and you guys are making operating system jokes.
Originally posted by SWCCFAN
you don't just loose a $150 million airplane and not have any mayday mesage sent. :
Most people are surprised to learn that we have more than one source for our imagery. We collect it via airplane and satellite, but also just about any way you can imagine getting a camera above the Earth's surface: hot air balloons, model airplanes – even kites. The traditional aerial survey involves mounting a special gyroscopic, stabilized camera in the belly of an airplane and flying it at an elevation of between 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet, depending on the resolution of imagery you're interested in. As the plane takes a predefined route over the desired area, it forms a series of parallel lines with about 40 percent overlap between lines and 60 percent overlap in the direction of flight. This overlap of images is what provides us with enough detail to remove distortions caused by the varying shape of the Earth's surface.
Originally posted by quest4info
www.cbc.ca...
and yet another crash, at least this pilot was found alive
Originally posted by Now_Then
reply to post by mtnshredder
People do seem to be forgetting the steathy nature of this aircraft... No point spending all that effort making a batman jet fighter hybrid and then have it flashing it's location to everyone able to pick up radio waves! - Seriously is that so hard to fathom? Sure it may have been on a training mission, but they make those things as real as possible many times.... They might have a general idea of what area it should have been in, but Alaska is a pretty big place.
Also regarding your comment about them being able to see a man reading a news paper... I'm assuming you mean from a satellite? - Well 2 things here, 1) Only if the satellite is already trained on that location and 2) It's a common misconception that satellites (or at least most of em anyway) can resolve an image down to that size, and to see a news paper clearly your looking for something like being able to resolve about 10 centimetres or less.... They simply don't do that, I think the most is maybe 1 meter, which would make an open news paper a single pixel. - And before you say 'Google Earth bro!' Well that is actually a composite picture stitched together from sat imagery and aerial photography.
Most people are surprised to learn that we have more than one source for our imagery. We collect it via airplane and satellite, but also just about any way you can imagine getting a camera above the Earth's surface: hot air balloons, model airplanes – even kites. The traditional aerial survey involves mounting a special gyroscopic, stabilized camera in the belly of an airplane and flying it at an elevation of between 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet, depending on the resolution of imagery you're interested in. As the plane takes a predefined route over the desired area, it forms a series of parallel lines with about 40 percent overlap between lines and 60 percent overlap in the direction of flight. This overlap of images is what provides us with enough detail to remove distortions caused by the varying shape of the Earth's surface.
link
Even kites lol, that's news to me.
Originally posted by mtnshredder
Are you saying we can view distant galaxies but can not view sea level a few thousand ft above Mt Everest in real time any time we like?
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
That's not surprising. Should've gone with Sukhoi but instead we still field these crappy American-made fighters and plan to buy more of their crappy hardware. American fighters have no place in our domestic fighter needs- long range interception in Arctic conditions.
Originally posted by erwalker
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
That's not surprising. Should've gone with Sukhoi but instead we still field these crappy American-made fighters and plan to buy more of their crappy hardware. American fighters have no place in our domestic fighter needs- long range interception in Arctic conditions.
Because of course a Sukhoi has never crashed. Unless you count the Salgareda Airshow where the pilot and a spectator were killed in 1990. Or the Sknyliv Airshow crash which killed 85 spectators in 2002. Let's not forget the five that have crashed between Sep 2005 and 20 Sep 2010, killing four pilots.
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Originally posted by erwalker
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
That's not surprising. Should've gone with Sukhoi but instead we still field these crappy American-made fighters and plan to buy more of their crappy hardware. American fighters have no place in our domestic fighter needs- long range interception in Arctic conditions.
Because of course a Sukhoi has never crashed. Unless you count the Salgareda Airshow where the pilot and a spectator were killed in 1990. Or the Sknyliv Airshow crash which killed 85 spectators in 2002. Let's not forget the five that have crashed between Sep 2005 and 20 Sep 2010, killing four pilots.
Gee, you don't think I know that? A Russian made all-weather fighter like the SU-27 has a much better track record than our CF-18s. You think I like hearing that our military has already lost two of our fighters just this year?