what’s up with the hate Mel Gibson campaign ?

The poster boy of the Independence vote is an alcoholic Australian anti-semite.

This has basically damned the YES campaign for independence anyway:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11099167/Spanish-warn-independent-Scotland-would-get-euro-not-pound.html

Spanish warn independent Scotland would get euro not pound

Spain’s European Affairs Minister contradicts Alex Salmond by stating a separate Scotland would need to wait at least five years for EU membership and sign up to the single currency

This basically leaves them with 2 days to go, no plan, and everything they’ve promised a lie.

What the graph doesn’t show is the actual density of the fuel and hence the space it takes up. Whilst the specific impulse is lower for solid fuel, because you can pack more mass into a smaller space it becomes more practical.

The manoeuvring aspect is a 2-way show. When pulling a high AoA thrust will contribute to manoeuvrability and the radial component will add to aero-lift. However, once burn finishes then it’s just aero-lift, so solid fuel will only provide an advantage at relatively short ranges assuming equal aero-lift. Longer burning VFDR will maintain the advantage of propelled flight longer and can ensure that both thrust and speed and hence aerolift are maximised for the intercept through controlled throttling.

Could someone explain why VFDR is capable of lower speeds than a liquid ramjet? Is it something to do with the speed of ignition and combustion wrt the fuel?

Hmmm … In 1986, the 25 years old SAM were… 25 years younger 😉

Given that several F111 were hit and one was shot down, those SAM were a pretty valid menace in the eyes of the USAF to fly low right through the AAA threat

They were 25 years old in 1986, that was my point. No different to the generation flew over in Vietnam.

Meh, when you consider how many missions the F-111 flew, losses are bound to occur, yet relatively few did. Even the F-117 had a loss with far fewer missions and the F-15E flew more sorties in the same conflict with no losses. Probability is a funny thing and doesn’t always tell the truth. What the SR-71 did do successfully is reduce the SAM-engagement envelope, much like the F-117 except in a different way. As a result, it could fly closer to high value areas and obtain better reconnaissance footage.

Oil money?

Still in deficit even with that.

There’s a small part of me that wants independence for Scotland just for the sake of ‘told you so’ rights.

Scotland will still need to protect their air space and their interests in Northern sea with their own force. If they will not get planes from RAF, than maybe they should buy some from France like Rafale fighters and helicopters.

Buy them with what? Fairy dust?

The SR71 went head down after the Lybian attack up to its mission tasking. It did that in 1986 safely despit ebeing fired right upon entering the Lybian airspace (it had an eng prob (afterburner) on the return leg and crossed France in subsonic before being intercepted by a Mirage (F1?) – The pilot is said to have passed MAch2.5 with one burnet lit and the other dry)).

So yes .The 71 did kept a safe margin for the 30 years it was in service. None were reportedly shot down.

Libyans were operating 25 year-old SAM systems. Tornados, Rafales and Typhoons passed over the same SAM systems a few years back with no problems at much lower speeds.

You intentionally avoided items #58, #59 and #60 in your linked document, which negate your arguments.

They don’t at all.

58 – Entitles them to particular care and caution. So why were they allowed to fly over a war zone, re-directed at the last minute and no NOTAM issued? Care and caution was being exercised by ground forces, hence why more weren’t shot down, despite the callous behavior of Airlines and Ukrainian ATC in completely neglecting their duties. Only the flight that was re-directed at the last minute with no issue of warning was shot down, the facts speak for themselves.

59 – Yes, IF you know it’s a civilian airliner, then it’s assumed not to be making an effective contribution. IF!

60 – No they don’t lose their protection IF you know it’s a civilian airliner. An airliner has to identifiable as an airliner for it to be afforded protection. Ukrainian ATC’s failure to issue a NOTAM and last minute re-direction ensured there was no way it could be identified as an airliner. Meanwhile this same point also states that it should avoid entering a conflict zone.

Meanwhile 63(f) states that they shouldn’t be used as decoys, as the Ukrainian Air Force was effectively doing by flying fighter operation close to them.

You’ve not made a single valid point.

The main responsibility lies with those who shot down the aircraft. The Ukrainian government didn’t make them do it. It was their choice. The next greatest responsibility lies with those who supplied the SAM system. If the operators lacked the ability to distinguish between airliners & military aircraft, & didn’t even have the sense to check airline flights (easily done, even in the field, in these days of mobile communications) they shouldn’t have been trusted with anything so dangerous.

Utter garbage that shows a complete disregard for International Law of Air Warfare.

http://ihlresearch.org/amw/HPCR%20Manual.pdf

You’ll find that accidentally shooting down an airliner because you’re trying to defend yourself is not against one single article of this document. Nor is supplying arms to someone trying to defend themselves (assuming that to be the case).

What is specifically mentioned is:

a) Trying to avoid routes over conflict zones as several airlines did;

b) Issuing a NOTAM that indicates your flight path, altitude, transponder frequency and radio frequency. It is not up to ground forces to ‘check airline flights’, it is up to airlines and civil aviation authorities to tell them formally; and

c) Military targets should not be placed near civilian assets. Flying fighter jets with jamming equipment in the vicinity of airliners falls under this category.

So sadly your opinion is wrong and irrelevant. The culpable parties are:

i) Civilian Aviation Authorities for not barring flights in that area.

ii) Airline companies for putting profit before safety and not choosing to avoid the area themselves.

iii) Airline companies and Ukrainian ATC for diverting the flight and for not issuing a NOTAM. Note that even if they did ‘check airline flights’, as you say, it would have been of F all use because the Ukrainian ATC had effectively changed them at the very last minute.

All three of these points conflict with the International Air Warfare Law Manual.

Even today there are still a-holes flying over Northern Iraq and Syria waiting for an accident (or not) to happen. It’s not like you need an accident with ISIS though.