Stealth operations

This post is about the long awaited Russian military aircraft technology response, Sukhoi T-50, to the US F-22 Raptor. For those who do not keep up with fighter aircraft, the F-22 is America's top of the line fighter aircraft being referred to as the only operational 5th generation fighter currently in existence. The other US 5th generation fighter is the F-35 Lightning II planned for delivery later this year. In a nutshell, these aircraft have all of the latest developments in avionics, materials, engines, and electronics integrated into an advanced system. Once distinction of the next generation aircraft is stealth technology or the ability to evade most radars. 5th generation aircraft have a significant advantage during combat over older 4th generation and earlier fighters.

The Sukhoi T-50 is a product of the once proud Russian military industrial complex under the Soviets that easily kept up with the Western bloc countries until communism fell in 1991. Now, the Russian arms producers are just a remnant of their former greatness. It partially explains why it took so long to produce the initial prototype. It appears as if the plane has a long way to go before actually combat readiness.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin hailed the flight as a "big step forward," but admitted that "a lot remains to be done in terms of engines and armament."

Reading further into the article, it appears the new technology is NOT a significant change from the prior generation of aircraft.

The NPO Saturn company said in a statement that the jet has new engines, but military analysts suggested that they were a slightly modernized version of the Soviet-era engine powering the Su-27 family of fighters.

"It's a humbug," said independent military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer. "It's just a prototype lacking new engines and a new radar. It takes new materials to build a fifth-generation fighter, and Russia lacks them."

It appears as if this new plane is an upgrade for the Russian military and not really a true 5th generation fighter. In the end, I think Russia may have it right in improving upon their tried and true technology into better weapons. In contrast, the US spent tens of billions of dollars to build a complete new weapon without a defined military need or combat role.

Technophobia

We as Americans (anyone in a developed nation) live in a complex, technologically advanced world. We have equipment that transports us in quick efficient manner, like automobiles and airplanes. We also have information technology such as radios, televisions and computers that transport information almost instantly across the world. Many more technological marvels exist in our world. As an engineer, these tools are magic without any of the deception. What always strikes me strange are individuals who have strange or irrational beliefs about technology. Sometimes, these beliefs are to the point of fear and often the terms technophobe or Luddite are used. I believe three main reasons why someone would reject a form of technology:
1) Utilitarian
2) Ignorance
3) Cultural influence of a potential failed society

Technology exists to make our daily lives easier. It is utilitarian in nature. As with anything in life, we choose whether to bring the useful gadgets into our lives or reject them. It can be argued that too much technology eventually becomes the accumulation of things and is materialistic. The Amish believe that technology disrupts the social order and prevents them from focusing on their cherished beliefs of community, simplicity and religion. As for those of us in mainstream society, this extreme rejection seems ridiculous. Looking to a more common pragmatic view is the selective acceptance and rejection of technologies. If someone accepted all new gadgets when they become available, their house would be filled to the brim with all sorts of things. Several conflicting technologies would be sitting next to each other. Since only one tool would be used as a primary phone or entertainment piece. Clutter would ensue. Significant amounts of money would also be wasted. This would not make our daily lives easier. It really is best if we limit our technology to what is needed. Rejection of some technology on the grounds of simplicity is necessary.

When I was young, they had a movie The Gods Must Be Crazy. The basic storyline is when a Coke bottle is dropped out of an airplane to a primitive tribe in Kalahari Africa. The natives are fascinated with the bottle never before seeing such a wonder and end up fighting over the bottle. They try to get rid of the bottle because of all the trouble within the tribe it is causing. We as individuals in industrialized countries are used to seeing such items. We do not fight over them in the same manner. The Bushman's lack of understanding is a form of ignorance. I am not degrading the tribesman, they just simply do not know what the item is due to lack of knowledge from experience. Being an engineer, I am exposed to high technology on a daily basis. I do not expect people with less experience/education to understand how advanced technology works. I do expect them to become comfortable with a technology after contact. Too often, this is not the case. New technologies come out and unsubstantiated claims immediate appear. The one that quickly comes to mind is nanotechnology making gray goo in people's minds. Note, this is science fiction and not reality. No form of nanotechnology exists that can replicate and turn your brain into goo! The lack of experience in everyday society allowed for the formation of media headlines stating such falsehoods. This kind of ignorance too often extends to common everyday technology unfortunately.

Something that has sort of a mythological place in western culture is the dystopia, the anti-utopia. Several well known dystopia stories are 1984, Brave New World and the Terminator movie series. The world has become an unpleasant, giant dysfunctional society with the technologically armed leaders keeping others in check. The future is an unknown arena. New controlling technologies may emerge, creating a potential dystopia. This is a fear raising idea without anyway to argue for or against. The Man may start watching with his new technology. How do I avoid this? Is this really a fault of technology. I would say no. This is really the product of an authoritarian government using technology to their advantage. It is a negative product of human action. The concept is old as the hills.

Technology can often generate other undesired results creating an unpleasant future, like pollution or various ecological destruction. These are controllable factors, once again by people. It is not a forgone conclusion the entire natural world will be destroyed. Societies have the option of adopting or rejecting a certain technology on the same principle as an individual for the common good. It is not fair to scapegoat all of modern life on the basis of an unknown future outcome. What is even more mystifying is the destructive results are from a minority of technologies. One can not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Truly, I believe prevention of a ecological disaster will come through the development of less harmful technologies and through cleaning up pollution using new techniques. Repealing technologies' march forward will not stop ecological damage.

New monitoring technology

There is a huge debate going on in the US concerning the monitoring of public places using video cameras. I am personally in favor of monitoring some public areas within a limited context, but I also feel the cautious warning of civil libertarians against abuse. Privacy is also an issue with cameras constantly monitoring. This post is about an interesting monitoring technology that can locate gunfire within a given area. The makers (ShotSpotter of Mountain View, CA) claims the technology can pin point the discharge of a firearm according to when the shot occurred and the physical location.

ShotSpotter monitors only one thing: gunshots. Its microphones can detect a gunshot from a mile or more away. The system determines the exact location of each shot using triangulation and wirelessly transmits a recording of the sound to police dispatchers.

This technology solves the conflict between public security and personal privacy. If used in a proper context, cities and crowded locations guns have no place being fired, this would help prevent crimes infiltrated with guns. Since it is illegal to fire a gun in the city, all events recorded are crimes. Initial trials seem promising.

The system was installed in San Francisco late last year as part of a crime-fighting initiative. Since the beginning of the year, the city's homicide rate has dropped 50%.

The secondary use of a system would be as evidence in the proof of self-defense.

In an argument against the ShotSpotter system, it does not help law enforcement in crimes where no firearm was discharged. The system dose not help with a significant portion of crimes committed.

Next generation shark

This posting is on a new type of ship the navy is working on. Yahoo News puts forth this article on the race for a highly anticipated, next generation warship. The ships in competition are a monohull ship versus a trimaran (three hull ship). The sailing ships that are used in the big money races like the America's Cup use trimarans as top-of-the-line designs. The three hulls have low water friction with added stability from balance and are typically advantageous to the single hull design. Neither design in this sense is new.

What is new are nontraditional propulsion systems in the two rivals.

Both versions of the Littoral Combat Ship use powerful diesel engines, as well as gas turbines for extra speed. They use steerable waterjets instead of propellers and rudders and have shallower drafts than conventional warships, letting them zoom close to shore.

Driving close to shore is going to be easy for this new generation ship. This will have the multiple advantages of going up rivers, docking in many inaccessible places and going close to shore chasing the world's unpleasant variety. Pirates, yarrrrrrrh!

The other neat thing is this boat goes automobile highway speeds.

Independence, a 418-foot warship built in Alabama, boasts a top speed in excess of 45 knots, or about 52 mph, and sustained 44 knots for four hours during builder trials that wrapped up this month off the Gulf Coast. The 378-foot Freedom, a ship built in Wisconsin by a competing defense contractor, has put up similar numbers.

Whoever wins the contract will make a mint due to the navy's rush.