New Mars Forums

SpaceNut,

What I care about is that the State of Minnesota's Governor, the Minneapolis Mayor, and a lot of Somalis, all took part in a TEN BILLION DOLLAR MEDICAID FRAUD!

Only Democrats actually care about skin color, which is why they talk about it all the time.  Everyone else is waiting for Democrats to course-correct to a set of core governance principles that don't involve blatant criminality.

If every single one of the people we imported from Somali were blonde-haired blue-eyed bikini team models, and they were involved in the same fraud schemes, then I would still want to deport every last one of them.

America is not going to become an "anything-goes" communist dystopia because a minor fraction of the population wants to agitate for it on the basis of irrationality and general ignorance of history.

You know who absolutely does deserve American citizenship?

All those Afghanis who fought for America, and for their own freedom, that President Biden's administration straight-up abandoned to the Taliban, should have been scooped up and spirited away from the hell hole the Taliban created.

How about all the Kurds and Yazidi who fought tooth-and-nail against ISIS?

Surely they are more deserving of the privilege of being an American than the repulsive assortment of rapists and murderers President Biden's administration imported into America.

RobertDyck,

We have a lot of Somali illegals to feed these days.  If we don't become the largest banana republic, then they're going to starve.  We do a lot of things to people, but letting them starve to death isn't one of them.  BTW, you forgot the "and rice" part.  We're becoming the largest "banana and rice republic".

RobertDyck,

I'm quite sure every illegal alien criminal would agree with you, but this is why Americans determine what law enforcement agencies we require to enforce our immigration laws, rather than foreign nationals.

You don't need a bank account to pay bills.  There are numerous people living in America who have never had a bank account during their entire adult lives.  The fact that you're unaware of this is how I know that you don't know much about the subject matter.

We don't need any thugs, which is why ICE is deporting the illegal alien thugs that the Biden administration allowed into America by not enforcing our immigration laws.

If the banking and accounting world was as neat and simple as you portray it, then most organized crime would be impossible, but this is not how the real world works.

SpaceNut,

Vandalizing a government vehicle was the least of Pretti's criminal behavior.  When Pretti decided to punch ICE agents, that was the moment his behavior went from obnoxious outburst to violent felony against federal law enforcement officers.

Minnesota's Democrat leadership was afforded every opportunity to hand over violent illegal alien criminals at their own jails.  They refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement after they were caught stealing federal money, and instead decided to create a bunch of domestic terrorist cells.

Good and Pretti were garden variety leftist whack-a-loons looking for a cause to join, and because Democrats can't resist a good crime spree, Walz and Frey and other far leftist activists in Minnesota's local and state government organized, funded, and encouraged their criminal behavior.

Why did they do that?

They don't think the law applies to them, no different than any other criminal.  They think they're entitled to what better men and women have created through their own hard work.  This belief is nothing new amongst criminals.  It's timeless.

All law enforcement agencies are public-facing.

All law enforcement agencies interact with civilians.

All law enforcement agencies have dealt with crowds of rioters.

The military, for the most part, is non-public-facing, and was not designed or intended for law enforcement operations.

Walz and Frey directed their local and state law enforcement agencies to refuse to cooperate with ICE.  If leftists truly want de-escalation, then they should stop interfering with ICE agents doing their jobs.  I don't think that's what Minnesota's leftists actually want, though, and the proof is found in their behavior and rhetoric.

You really should take that up with Walz and Frey.

SpaceNut,

If that structure was wrapped around the outside of the torus, then it provides a stiffer and stronger support structure without resorting to using tubing with 8mm wall thickness.  If we have a 20m inner diameter torus pressurized to 21.75psi (14.5psi * 1.5 safety factor), then the hoop stress with 2m (78.74in) thick Hesco barrier type walls (the minimum regolith shielding required to absorb most of the radiation dose) is 130.5psi, which equates to 202,275 pounds of force, or 91.75 metric tons-force per square meter (130.5psi * 1,550in^2 per square meter).

Hoop Stress / Circumferential Tensile Stress = PD / 2t
P = Internal Pressure
D = Diameter
t = wall thickness

Keep all of your units consistent.  If you decide to use metric, then it's Pascals (Pa) for internal pressure and meters for diameters and wall thicknesses.  If you decide to use "people who have been to the moon" units of measure, then internal pressure is measured in terms of pounds-force per square inch (psi) for internal pressure and inches for diameters and wall thicknesses.

Void,

Apparently, someone has already done this:

Void,

If you have a clear polymer and fresh water, can you make some kind of giant selectively deformable "water lens" to evaporate sea water, collect the minerals, and extract the fresh water from the ocean?

I'm thinking of something like an enormous "breast implant", for lack of a better visual representation, rather than a "contact lens", and you use mechanical / hydraulic power to "deform" said lens to optimally concentrate the sunlight.

Why the "breast implant" vs "contact lens" approach?

You can control concentration of the sunlight in a way that isn't practical with a single lens and would otherwise require some sort of "giant telescope" precision lens alignment which would make the device much more expensive than a fresh water filled silicone membrane that can give you just enough power concentration to flash the water to steam in a controlled manner.  It's much less of a "solar death ray" than it is a slow but immensely powerful hydraulic cylinder that delivers just enough "photonic force" to the surface of the sea water to get the job done, without going overboard with the power concentration.

The size of this device could be enormous, secured to a shallow sea bed offshore using steel hydraulic cylinders sunk into the bedrock, which are then used to deform the membrane, as required, to optimize beam intensity and size.  I was thinking of using some layers of flexible plastic underneath it to collect and route the fresh water and mineral rich brine.  That's another reason why we don't "death ray" power, because it would melt the collector plate plastic.

The "benefit" to this style of fresh water and mineral brine collection is that it can be a fundamentally simple mechanical device with minimal moving parts.  Apart from the lens support / lens deformation hydraulic stanchions arrayed around the periphery of the lens, there's very little metal required, temperatures aren't completely nuts so it wouldn't kill the marine life below it, and over time we could "mine" truly enormous quantities of light (Sodium, Calcium, Magnesium, Lithium) and heavy (Uranium) metals.  The carbonates would supply CO2, and maybe we could devise a method to collect the dissolved CO2 as well.

Maybe you already thought of this.  If so, then disregard.  I just thought it would be a neat "low-tech" way of getting fresh water and large quantities of light aerospace and battery making metals.

Terraformer,

The Proper Role of Turbine Powered Military Aviation Assets
There's a militarily justifiable argument for launching stealthy turbine powered cruise missiles to attack the enemy's network of integrated air defense system sensors and to destroy their tactical fighter jets on the ground.  After that work is done, all further work should be accomplished using dramatically more cost-effective piston engine aircraft.

What makes a military aviation asset "modern"?
If we had a time machine and could send A-1 Skyraiders back to Viet Nam, re-equipped with the radar from the XQ-58A (a Super Hornet equivalent radar that only weighs 100lbs), an ample supply of AIM-9X and AIM-120D missiles, and tasked them with wiping out all American and North Vietnamese aircraft flying over Viet Nam, then within a month or two the only aircraft to be found in the skies over Viet Nam would be A-1s.  I don't care if every American and Vietnamese pilot was a Top Gun valedictorian.  There is only one possible result.  Modern military aircraft aren't "modern" on the basis of engine type or cruising speeds.  Their avionics, sensors, and weapons are what make them "modern" (and lethal).  The speed is nice to have, but there are vanishingly few opportunities to exploit it to any significant degree.

Pure Speed vs Unsustainable Fuel Burn Rates, Cost Unimportant
During the actual Viet Nam War, not one American plane designed to achieve Mach 2 or faster, ever hit Mach 1.4.  During 10 years of fighting, the highest achieved speed during a combat mission was Mach 1.3.  The reason was quite simple.  From Mach 0.95 to about Mach 3, the rise in aerodynamic drag is so sharp that your fuel burn rate increases so fast that your effective combat radius drops to less than 150 miles or so.  At lower altitudes you can burn through all internal and external fuel in minutes.  That's why every F-4 over Viet Nam was equipped with at least 2X 370 gallon wing tanks, and usually a centerline 600 gallon external tank as well.

Presume you came screaming in on the deck in your Phabulous Phantom, full 'burner, "flying under the radar", such as it were.

Let's do some fighter pilot math to illustrate how fast you'll run out of fuel:
While the example used here is America's Cold War Era "heavy fighter", the F-4E Phantom II, it's applicable to essentially every turbojet and turbofan engine powered fighter type aircraft ever made.

12,961lbs of internal fuel
5,032lbs for both 370 gallon wing tanks
4,080lbs for the 600 gallon centerline tank

You have 22,073lbs of total onboard fuel for your combat configured tactical fighter.

17,845lbf of thrust per GE J79 engine in full afterburner, so 35,690lbf from both engines
35,690lbf * 1.965lbs/lbf/hr (TSFC) = 70,130.85lbs of fuel burned per hour
70,130.85lbs / 60 minutes = 1,168.8475lbs of fuel burned per minute
22,073lbs / 1,168.8475lbs/min = 18.88 minutes

You're out of fuel in less than 20 minutes.  You can meaningfully extend your time-of-flight by flying at 30,000ft vs sea level, but the additional flight time you get is less than you'd think.  Flying at high altitudes in a non-stealthy aircraft also comes with significant tradeoffs in a combat zone.

A totally clean F-4 with no external anything (no fuel tanks, ordnance, or even pylons) could achieve 900mph at sea level.  If you're carrying anything at all, especially those giant external fuel tanks, then you will never hit 900mph, but let's pretend to illustrate how utterly ridiculous its Mach 2.2 "top speed" truly is.

900mph = 15 miles per minute
15 miles per minute * 18.88 minutes = 283.2 miles

That's exactly how far your F-4 can travel at sea level in afterburner before it's completely out of fuel.  You'd be lucky to achieve 200 miles if you had anything at all hung off the wings, especially those giant drag-inducing external fuel tanks.  Regardless, you're going to have a very short flight if you stay in burner for very long.

Let's briefly pretend our Phantom was re-engined with very modern GE F414 engines, so 44,000lbf for both engines.
44,000lbf * 1.85lbs/lbf/hr (TSFC) = 81,400lbs of fuel burned per hour
81,400lbs / 60 minutes = 1,356.6667lbs of fuel burned per minute
22,073lbs / 1.356.6667 = 16.27 minutes

That means you're out of fuel even faster by using modern afterburning turbofan vs turbojet tactical fighter jet engines.  Yes, you clearly get more thrust at all power settings and even low-bypass fighter jet turbofans burn a bit less fuel than turbojets, but at the end of the day making more thrust means burning more fuel, period.  End of story.  There never was any other story.

The Irrelevance of "Supercruise" to Air Combat
The F-22 has a meaningfully higher thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-4, so it can actually fly faster than Mach 1 without using afterburner, but that doesn't mean its fuel load lasts significantly longer when you try to "max out" flight speed at mil power or burner, because F-119s are still very thirsty engines which only generate a lot more thrust by burning a lot more fuel.  TSFCs in afterburner for the F414 (a modern turbofan representing a J79-sized engine equivalent) are 1.85lbs/lbf/hr vs 1.965lbs/lbf/hr for "old smokey" (J79).  Even without going into burner, J79 mil power TSFC was 0.81lbs/lbf/hr vs 0.84lbs/lbf/hr for the F414.  That means fuel consumption to make more power is worse, not better.  The primary benefit to the F414 is that you get as much mil power as a J79 produces in full burner, in an engine that weighs 2/3rds as much as the J79.  At no throttle setting does a F414 actually burn less fuel than the J79, and the J79 was a gas guzzler.

If you try to fly just as fast as you can, then you still don't get much more air time, even if the F414 would allow the F-4 to "supercruise" above Mach 1 like the F-22.  Older engines like the J79 also frequently had "burner time limits" of 15 minutes or so, but let's be completely honest with ourselves here, you're not going to fly much farther after 15 minutes in burner anyway.  If you spend any significant time in burner or even at mil power, then you'd better have a tanker directly in front of you or a suitable landing spot picked out.

The Yankee Station Example: Closer to "The Action" than any Modern Forward Air Base
Yankee Station was located approximately 100 miles off the coast of Viet Nam, so 100 miles to "feet dry", and then another 100 miles back to the boat.

Do you plan on making it back to the boat after a mission that takes you 100+ miles inland?

If so, then you're going to be really stingy with the afterburner, and likely have second thoughts about moving the throttle up to the mil power setting after climb-out.  You definitely won't want to "get low" unless forced to do so.  You'll want to stay between 25,000 and 35,000ft whenever possible.  Most of the time you're going to cruise around at 500mph in combat configuration, because that's what you must do to conserve enough gas to fight someone or evade missiles if you have to, and still make it back to Yankee Station.  Best maneuvering speed in the F-4 is also around 500mph.  By the time you're moving at Mach 1, an Iowa class battleship moving at 30 knots has a tighter turn radius than the F-4.  F-4s moving at 500mph could turn inside SA-2 missiles fired at them.  F-4s moving at Mach 1 couldn't turn inside of a ZIP code.

The Multi-Billion Dollar Question
Are we starting to understand why nobody ever went faster than Mach 1.3 during the entire Viet Nam War, despite the fact that we flew tens of thousands of sorties in Mach 2 capable tactical fighters like the F-4, F-8, F-105, and F-111?

Every time I hear someone tell me about how fast their fighter jet is, relative to someone else's fighter jet, my eyes roll harder than the A-4 with its rate limiter removed.

Even in "Fantasy Land", Speed Still Kills Life-Saving Evasive Maneuvering
If you were dropped into the cockpit of a combat jet so fuel efficient that you could economically fly faster than Mach 1, if you don't slow down in a hurry after someone launches a missile at you, you're probably going to D-I-E.  You can pull hard enough to rip the wings off, but when you're flying much faster than 600mph (well below Mach 1), you still can't turn inside of an 80g capable heat seeker like the AIM-9X.  This best maneuvering speed limit is dictated by both flight physics for a 9g capable combat jet and human physiology.  Highly trained and conditioned humans can withstand 10g for very short periods of time, but not much more than that, and nearly all high time fighter pilots who routinely perform such maneuvers end up with severe spinal injuries later in life.

Max power output for a combat jet is therefore reserved for 3 events:
1. Short field takeoffs
2. Rapidly ascending to cruising altitude
3. Recovering energy (speed) following hard maneuvering

Throw a Nickel on the Grass
In fighter pilot training, they teach you to do the fuel math in your head, because if you can't then you're probably not making it home.  Yes, modern fighter jets have fuel totalizers to do the math for you.  If that nifty gadget ever breaks, then what?  I trust my fuel flow rate meter and my ability to do math in my head.  When the fuel totalizer gadget works, it's great.  If not, I'm still not going to have my mother read my obituary because I can't do basic math.  You can think of flight in a modern combat jet as "minutes of life remaining before you run out of fuel, crash, and die", because that is very close to the truth.

Parting Thoughts as to Why Speed Alone isn't a "Determining Factor"
Yes, I absolutely did have to spill that much ink to explain to a non-pilot why the impressive "paper speeds" of fighter jets aren't all that impressive to anyone who actually uses aircraft as weapons.  You are not going to chase down an enemy bomber 500 miles away, which has 10X more fuel onboard than your fighter jet, simply because you're in a Mach 2.5 capable fighter jet, or any similar cockamamie nonsense.  They're either coming to you, in which case you don't need to chase them down, or you're going to launch your own cruise missiles at their air base, because then you still don't need to chase them down.  That is how real world air intercept and attack works.  You send missiles after enemy aircraft, not fighter jets.  The fighter jet is a mobile launch platform.

I think that horse is now well and truly "dead", although one can never be too sure.

Military Aircraft Applications for Modern Automotive Engines
Now let's talk about modern automotive piston engines, which are approximately twice as fuel efficient as a tactical fighter's turbojet or low-bypass turbofan engines across a much wider power output range, while still delivering enough power to "cruise" between 400 and 500mph at altitude, although 350mph is a better cruising speed for fuel economy, and quite similar to the actual cruising speed of a combat loaded A-10.  For comparison, the V-22 Osprey tops out at 350mph and the A-1 Skyraider's top speed was 325mph.

Modern Big Block Automotive Engines as Military Aircraft Engines
Modern so-called "big block" pushrod V8 automotive engines with electronic fuel injection and electronic ignition can deliver 1,000hp, naturally aspirated.  When equipped with a modern supercharger and intercooler located atop the lifter valley, they can continuously deliver 800hp.  RPM kills piston engines, primarily because the pistons come apart.  For extended duration piston life, 4,000fpm is about as fast as you want the piston to move an Aluminum piston.  The most modern high performance heavy duty diesel truck pistons are high strength steel forgings, rather than Aluminum forgings, and do not have the same piston speed limitations.  That said, for a spark-ignited big block, if you keep the RPM to about 4,500 or less, then the engine can run continuously, even using forged Aluminum pistons.

Big Block Definition
I define "big blocks" as V8s that can be configured to total displacement of over 500 cubic inches.  Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors all made "big block" V8 engines.  Ford and GM still offer updated versions of these block designs.  Modern big blocks, whether factory-built or aftermarket, are substantially stronger than the blocks that rolled off the assembly lines in Detroit during America's "muscle car" era.

With a 4.5 inch bore and 4.5 inch stroke, you have a 572 cubic inch V8 engine, a so-called "square" (bore and stroke are the same) engine.  That's a good configuration for fairly high-RPM operation.  Over-square engines (bore larger than stroke) are better for higher-RPM operation, common in racing applications.  Under-square engines (stroke longer than bore diameter), are better for lower-RPM operation, which is why nearly all diesels are under-square designs.

Hot Rod Magazine:
572-Inch Blown Big-Block Chevy Engine Makes 1,013 HP on the Dyno!

Notice from the dyno chart that the engine is making 1,000hp at 6,000rpm, and 800hp at 4,400rpm.

The engine in question has 8:1 compression and runs on 91 Octane motor gasoline using carbs, so no special AVGAS containing toxic Tetra-Ethyl-Lead is required.  Removing TEL from the fuel greatly reduces spark plug fouling and doesn't plate-out on valve seats.  Single vs dual plug ignition is acceptable.  Larger bore engines like the Merlin engine, as well as the slightly newer air-cooled engines from Continental and Lycoming, use dual plugs in part because their bores are so large that the flame front would take longer to reach across the bore.  This has not been an issue for American big block V8s.

The blower configuration used on the newer LS series engines, as found in the Cadillac V series and Corvette, can deliver more boost at lower temperatures, from far less blower displacement than the monster blower shown on the engine from the Hot Rod Magazine article.  Harrop's TVS2650 blower can deliver up to 1,200hp on a big block.  An EFI / EI motor could run 9:1 compression on 93 Octane motor gasoline, so the RPM of the engine could then be lowered to something very similar to the operating RPM range of the geared Continentals and Lycomings, which have even longer strokes.  At that point, the big block is operating like a "real aircraft engine" (the air-cooled magneto-fired dinosaurs that Continental and Lycoming still produce).

Piston Tech, The Real Power Limiter
2618 is the Aluminum alloy of choice, which hasn't changed since it was first used for Merlin engine pistons by Rolls-Royce during WWII.  The best steels for this application produce pistons that are very slightly lighter than 2618 for equal strength at room temperature, but much better strength than any Aluminum alloy at max operating temperature.  Delivering enough splash lubrication to the bottom of the steel piston for adequate cooling is the only issue.  Steel pistons require more cooling oil than Aluminum.  Ceramic thermal barrier coatings on the piston crown help reflect heat back into the combustion chamber.  This sort of tech simply didn't exist when the Merlin and Meteor engines were being developed by Rolls-Royce.  For high-boost engines, thermal barrier coatings are piston savers.  Modern motor oils that can completely remove Carbon deposits from piston ring lands have only existed for the past 10 years or so.

WWII Merlin / Meteor Engine Comparison
The 27 liter Rolls-Royce Meteor tank engine, effectively a Merlin without the supercharger, had a dry weight of 1,841lbs and a power output of made about 550-810hp between 2,600 and 2,800rpm.  The 572 Big Block Chevy with an Iron block and cylinder heads, plus the supercharger and all accessories, weighs less than half as much as a Meteor, which was not equipped with the two-speed supercharger for high-altitude max effort power output.  What is less obvious from looking at pictures is that even with a gearbox attached, the 572 Chevy is less than half the size of the Meteor and Merlin engines for roughly the same power output without boosting it to the moon the way they did the Merlin to produce 1,750 to 2,000hp.  Merlin engines were famous for lifting heads and in war time use would see as little as 50 hours of operation before tear-down inspection and overhaul of select components.  Modern automotive engines, even when used in aircraft applications, do not require nearly as much maintenance.

General Motors Engine Testing
General Motors is famous for running their LS series modern small block engines for over a month at wide-open throttle as part of their testing process.  This manner of engine operation would cause any type-certificated air-cooled boxer-layout "real aircraft engine" from Continental or Lycoming to self-destruct, which is why max output for takeoff is limited to 5 minutes.  You will typically find this admonishment in the POH (Pilot's Operating Handbook).  A "throttle slam" (idle to max power as fast as you can jam the throttle into the firewall), is a better than average way to shear a crankshaft on a Continental or Lycoming.  Maybe you can do it and get away with it, but if I'm flying the plane we're not doing that.  This practice is accepted as "normal operation" for automotive V8 engines like the big block and small block V8 engines.

PSRU Reduction Gearbox Tech Improvements
Modern gearboxes can benefit from Austempered Ductile Iron gears which have a bit of "give" to them to help absorb the torque pulses from the engine.  CAD-enhanced snouts to absorb thrust loads from the props or prop shafts.  Torsional vibration evaluation and testing, which was a "black art" during WWII, is now something that can be readily evaluated almost entirely within a computer program.  The design of the gearbox casings is also enhanced by CNC machining that can accurately machine Aluminum billets or castings.  Substantial weight reduction relative to WWII era designs, for a given torque and rpm input range, is now possible.

Modern Piston Engine Military Aircraft Roles
All of these relatively new-ish but now exhaustively tested and proven technologies add up to the possibility of 1,000hp modified automotive engines for miniature versions of WWII style fighters / close air support / multi-engine bombers, enhanced with modern composite airframe materials, exceptionally powerful and capable miniaturized radars, and exceptionally precise guided munitions.  WWII era aircraft ended the war with 2,000-ish horsepower engines because every bit of the tech from that era was less than half as capable as modern equivalents.  Modern sensors and guided munitions are most certainly incomparably more advanced.  We have self-guided 3 inch cannon shells now, which have shot down cruise missiles and drones at ranges of over 25 miles, for example.  No such animal existed during WWII.  CLGPs for artillery and tanks were 1970s tech, roughly speaking, but now quite practical / reliable / cost-effective.  Palm-sized imaging sensors that can distinguish between two outwardly identical vehicles were the stuff of fantasy.

WWII bomber raids involved dozens of planes, dropping up to 10,000lbs worth of dumb bombs, because their accuracy was almost nonexistent and their sensors were barely adequate to find something resembling the target.  A modernized 4 piston engine bomber equivalent would only need to launch 1 or 2 JSOW glide bombs or cruise missiles from a safe distance to inflict similar damage.  It wouldn't carry 4 to 6 gunners, even if it was equipped with gun turrets for self-defense.  Most likely, a tail turret with 2 to 4 rear-firing Peregrine missiles would be sufficient discourage pursuit.

For "gunship" missions we could replace the bombs or cruise missiles with a 50mm XM913 cannon turret or 40mm CTAS turret that the British use.  The APFSDS rounds fired from the 40 or 50mm would go right through a MBT's turret, and possibly exit through the bottom of the vehicle.  MBT turret top and hull bottom armor are very minimal.  It'll stop 20mm most of the time.  Armored vehicles engaged this way are very dead, for minimal cost.  If that's too close for comfort, then it could also carry some Brimstone or Hellfire or Griffin missiles to plink at enemy vehicles from modest standoff ranges.  Anduril is now making Brimstone / Hellfire weight and cost class miniature cruise missiles that can be fired at targets from 100+ miles away.  That would put a low altitude piston engine "gunship" / "bomber" below the radar horizon, which means any effective defense against them would virtually require air assets.  If the enemy has no IADS, then these are low-risk missions that don't require enormously expensive turbine powered gunships.

Even if this 4 engine bomber / gunship was "lost" in the fight, the weapons it's carrying are probably worth more than the plane itself.  Aircrew are always expensive to lose, but a modern take on the WWII 4-engine strategic bomber won't risk losing 10 aircrew per aircraft.  It will have at least 1 and possibly 2 crew members for most missions.  We could have 1 human pilot and 9 Optimus robots if we decided that we absolutely had to replicate every last detail of the WWII model by assigning 10 aircrew per bomber, but even that doesn't make much sense these days.

When we can afford to put several squadrons worth of planes in the sky for every tactical fighter jet our enemies field, with better sensors and weapons, they're going to get massacred.  Yes, we will lose some of these lower-capability planes in the process, and that's unfortunate.  The difference will be that when all the shooting is over with, since we spent more of our money on better sensors and weapons instead of engines and heavier airframes, our planes will be the only planes still flying, because that's how attritional warfare works.  We can afford to "eat" the losses, as painful as they may be.  Our enemies won't be able to produce enough tactical fighter jets and well-trained pilots to offset their losses.  We can "spam" tens of thousands of these things at our enemies, and eventually most of them won't even have human crew members aboard, only Optimus robots.

Suppose there was a surprise cruise and ballistic missile attack on one of our forward air bases.  Do you want to lose 4 automotive engines and a bit of fiberglass, or an $85M F-35 that we only produce at the rate of 156 per year?

Think about how much money you're willing to risk by placing so much of it in so few tactical fighter jet "baskets".  The US military currently has about 12,000 total aircraft across all types.  Every nation involved in WWII typically made more aircraft of a single type than our entire aviation asset inventory.  The US lost about 10,000 aircraft during the Viet Nam War, mostly rotary wing assets, but also a very significant number of tactical fighters.  That would be an unrecoverable loss with today's turbine powered military aircraft costs.  In WWII, we would call such losses "a bad quarter".  Quantity still has a quality of its own.

RobertDyck,

I'm not making personal claims here.  I provided a link to findings of studies and reports compiled on illegal aliens, criminality, and reporting of crimes.  By your argument, which is fallacious, a census does not count as "proof" of anything, either, because it has not been adjudicated by a trier-of-fact (court of law), except that it is, and gets used as the basis for all sorts of public services and government representation.

When someone knows they are guilty of a crime, they tend not to report other crimes against them when doing so would result in legal action taken against them as well.

You are correct, sir!

People who are already criminals tend not to report crimes against them.  We have criminals on tape committing crimes against other prisoners while in our prisons system, yet the victim who a crime was perpetrated against, by another criminal, refuses to acknowledge that a crime even took place, much less testify against the other criminal, even when doing so leads to a reduced sentence.

Since we already have plenty of citizens who are criminals, can you tell me why we need to add to the total number of criminals in America by importing foreign nationals, more than a few of whom are also hardened criminals themselves, without so much as bothering to check IDs or run a background check at the border?

That was what we did under President Biden.  Even when they knew the illegal alien in question was a convicted felon, they still released them into the interior of the United States.  That seems utterly insane to me, but that's exactly what they did.  The law is crystal clear about what should've been done, but Democrats don't seem to accept that laws apply to them as well as everyone else.  They think they get to pick-and-choose which laws to enforce if they win an election.  That was never how the law is supposed to work.  Now we're back to enforcing the law again.  That means all the known felons who were convicted of major crimes before entry, or suspected of such crimes after entry into the United States, are getting rounded up and imprisoned or deported.  They never should've been allowed to roam free in America in the first place.

That was the thrust of my argument, which you ignore because you're more fixated on "being right" than "actually being compassionate".

I assume that all illegal aliens are criminals, because United Sates Code says it's illegal to enter into the United States without permission granted by our federal government.  This is a federal felony, and a felony is a crime.  You are free to argue what you think the law should be, but my arguments relate to what the law is, rather than what I wish it was.

If you entered into the United States legally, then you have my support.  I would hope you have the support of all Americans.  Through fidelity to our laws, you have the right to expect and should receive all the protections of law afforded to any other American citizen.

If you entered the United States illegally, then you should go back to wherever you came from and submit an application to become an American citizen if you wish to live here.  If your only crime was entering the United States illegally, both Democrat and Republican administrations have maintained that they will continue to impartially evaluate and grant re-entrance back into the United States and citizenship.  To wit, this interpretation of immigration law and its application has not changed for a very long time.

The United States has the most generous immigration policy of any nation because we are a nation of immigrants.  The desire to come to America, which we encourage and support, does not mean your first act on American soil should be breaking our immigration laws.

I've been to Canada twice in my life.  In both cases I showed my passport to the Canadian authorities and waited patiently to be granted entry.  At no time did I ever ignore Canadian immigration laws simply because I wanted to enter Canada and couldn't be bothered with obtaining permission from the Canadian government.

I've been to Mexico once in my life, for work.  Same deal.  I presented my passport, answered all of their questions about why I came to Mexico, and once they were satisfied with my answers I was sent on my way.

If Canada or Mexico refused to grant entry to me, then I would've gone back the way I came- no arguments, no threats, no attempts to "sneak in" away from a legal entry point in the dead of night.  The reason for that is quite simple.  I respect the people of Canada and Mexico enough to respect their government's decision about whether or not I am permitted to be in their country as an invited guest.  As an American, I think I have the right to expect the same thing of people who choose to come to America.  That is completely fair and in no way prejudiced against anyone.

RobertDyck,

Your "hard statistics" have a gaping hole in them.  Crimes against illegal aliens committed by other illegal aliens ARE NOT REPORTED, more often than not, and the illegal aliens already told you why they do not report crimes against them.

You demonstrated how you attempt to find data to fit your narrative, but when the the data doesn't reflect reality, you instead choose to ignore reality.

Since you decided to focus on Texas and motor vehicle crimes, specifically, let's look at Texas.

Let's examine how ridiculous your claim about Texas traffic crimes for illegals vs citizens truly is:
Dangerous and Deadly Vehicle Pursuits under Texas’ Operation Lone Star

Human Rights Watch is known to support and advocate for illegal immigration into the United States.  This is merely them here "telling on themselves" by complaining about the uptick in criminal activity associated with the immigration policy they support when Texas law enforcement continues to do its job.

Why are there so many "deadly" motor vehicle pursuits against illegal aliens?

Illegal aliens actually commit crimes at higher rates than the Texas citizens living in those counties, and then when DPS tries to stop them, they run from DPS.  68% of all DPS motor vehicle pursuits in Texas involved illegal aliens running from the Police.  That means illegals represent 2/3rds of all DPS pursuits.  Running from the Police on a public roadway is a crime, a felony at that, and those are the results.

I already did that.  70% of illegal aliens respondents, who were not worried about their illegal status being used against them, said they do not report crimes to the Police when queried.  Crimes happen most frequently against people who know and interact with each other on a daily basis, across all people in all nations.  This is a fact, not a conjecture.  Illegals living in the US most frequently interact with other illegals.

If that wasn't enough, Human Rights Watch just backed up my assertion with hard data obtained from Texas DPS, and Human Rights Watch supports and advocates for illegal immigration.

SpaceNut,

Ask the AI what yield strength (YS) it's using for the 304L tubing?:

A. room temperature YS
or
B. YS over the mildly cryogenic temperatures found at Korolev crater

The difference matters quite a lot.

clark,

This young lady's name was Laken Riley:

She never had the chance to become a nurse because she was raped and murdered by the sort of illegal alien criminals those ICE agents were in the process of arresting when Alex Pretti decided to attack them.  Your outrage over her death was conspicuously absent.

Alex Pretti was armed and he did assault federal law enforcement officers at least twice that we know about.  Is your claim that they were poorly trained based upon any personal knowledge of Police Procedure, or merely anger over the result?  If you repeatedly chase after law enforcement officers and assault them while carrying a gun, your chances of being shot increase exponentially.  Being an ICU nurse for the VA doesn't change that.  Being a Catholic Priest wearing a MAGA hat doesn't change that, either.

My immigrant wife couldn't believe ICE didn't shoot Pretti during his first unprovoked attack against their agents.  I'm not sure how being a Texan in Texas makes me more or less "rational", but a lot of your argumentation comes off as very emotional, so I guess I shouldn't expect much logic or reasoning where there likely isn't any.

Being pro-gun doesn't mean I think repeatedly chasing after and assaulting federal agents who were sent to arrest a rapist is an acceptable way to behave.

LT Christopher Dorner was a fellow Navy man.  He was quite clearly a "card-carrying pro-gunner" as well.  Sadly, he also shot seven people who were not initially trying to do anything at all to him.  I don't agree with or condone what he did, either.

Politics has nothing to do with how I feel about what Alex Pretti and Christopher Dorner did to other people.  They ceased to behave like responsible adults when they began behaving like enraged maniacs over whatever perceived injustice they felt they were subjected to, and that's where they lost me.  Both men chose to engage in "street justice" and received "street solutions" in response.  Their treatment of people who did nothing to them is what matters to me, not the fact that they shared one specific value I have.

From the few times we've interacted, you've engaged in a lot of name-calling, angry outbursts over things that were not even done to you, personally, and uncivil treatment of other forum members.  I'm not embarrassed by you, but I am disappointed by how you treat others who don't share your opinions.