MANPADs have intercepted a few missiles, but are not a tool for intercepting missiles.
> Yet it would have been a PR disaster if NATO admitted to supplying weapons to Ukraine before the invasion started. So MANPADs are implied to have sprouted like mushrooms in Ukraine..
Not really sure what “proven in combat” looks like, the US fortunately hasn’t fought a peer in a long, long time so all of our stuff has only been tested in fairly one sided wars.
If a country’s Air Force is getting in fair fights, I’d suspect either they are in pretty dire circumstances, or they have some questionable decision making going on!
Everybody of course would like to read a ranking of all fighter jet planes me included. Not like who is fastest or has most ammunition but who has the best rate of survival. This could perhaps be determined by some sort of simulation. Would not make sense to put them into an actual fight really. Countries who own the planes would not want the enemy to know their weaknesses.
Rate of survival under what circumstances? Even for the simple case of pairwise one-on-one dogfights, there could easily be a rock-paper-scissors scenario where there's no single dominant plane.
Also, the data would be from simulations. Outside of Ukraine, there haven't been many fighters of advanced nations shot down in decades.
There were rumours of an Isreali F-35 targeted and damaged (but survived) by some old Russian AA system, maybe BUK? This was based on observed events and movements. Of course, we would never know, which is correct and appropriate.
The topic of "spectral stealth" is complicated. It is vulnerable to systems of networked radars, among other things. It is one feature that may be very useful, but it is not a "panacea".
Russian BUKs and S-400s in Syria repeatedly and consistently tracked Israeli F-16s. In an actual shooting war they'd have gone down, fast, and the Israelis knew it -- which is why they bought into the F-35. Price was good and, like, "stealth".
There is little to suggest that the Israeli F-35 was taken down by a missile; the sources involved are not especially credible. Eurasia Times, for example, is basically Russia Today (RT) and is not really trustworthy. Most of the posts elsewhere, e.g. Quora, are from questionable accounts and aren't credible either.
It's possible it happened and they're spinning it as something birds -- which is pretty lame and damning if true -- but most of the pro-shot-down points are difficult to take seriously.
Nothing is known, but if we assume the basic events are not fabricated, then the behaviour of an F-35 was somehow altered by a fired missile. If such a missile detonated within a radius of maybe 30-40m (or something) then damage would have been substantial. If greater than maybe 100m (or something) there would only be mild damage, but that means the missile wasn't tracking the target. This scenario would also not be surprising.
If true, I don't think it necessarily presents the F-35 poorly. But it's only a rumour. And if true, it most likely would be classified as secret, since reporting it would be like handing the enemy a damage assessment report.
And in Ukraine, the life expectancy of anything flying above treetop has been very very low (admittedly F35 would fare better than its competitors here).
More than 20 years ago, I wrote networking portions of such simulations. Even for the unclassified components for those simulations, many of the components were still both commercial secrets and considered munitions under ITAR export controls.
Terrain maps beyond a certain resolution are classified. As I remember, the somewhat lower resolution terrain maps were still ITAR controlled munitions. Some of the radio propagation models are classified.
Even half-way decent simulation outputs are likely also classified.
In my case, for the most part, the simulations were used to shorten the turnaround time in the early prototyping stages, and also a fair amount for the sales team to sell military hardware to governments.
You might want to track down the information they release from multinational training exercises like Red Flag. Reportedly the F-35 has put in multiple dominant showings at Red Flag since its debut. I'm not sure how complete the information they release from these exercises is, though, and some of the aircraft involved (most notably the F-22) are notoriously restrained to keep the true capabilities of the platform secret.
European authorities are still able to enforce fines against him unless he’s exceedingly careful, even if he doesn’t have direct presence in the EU.
This is why many websites just block European IP addresses entirely.
You might think you’re safe in the US, but perhaps you use a payment processor with significant European presence? Stripe or Paypal, for example. European authorities can take your money.
> This is why many websites just block European IP addresses entirely.
This is not sufficient. IP addresses do not have sovereign rights and only loosely correlate with the legal jurisdiction of the user behind the originating packet.
This is a world where, by connecting to the internet and exchanging packets, you are simultaneously liable for every law under every jurisdiction; it’s just a game of roulette which jurisdiction the packet you receive is coming from.
This doesn’t seem scalable, sustainable, or particularly good for human/civil rights.
No, they can’t. People in sovereign countries aren’t beholden to your country’s laws. The EU can block access to the site from inside but nothing more. It doesn’t rule the world.
Not really, it's a on-purpose contrived thing to attempt to deploy sandboxed apps on Windows.
Developing a sandboxed app in Windows means deploying a correctly sandboxed Appx in Microsoft Store, and getting those (Appx deployed on Microsoft Store) correctly working is hell for any non-trivial application.
On Linux, you can attempt (it's not garanteed to work) to sandbox anything you want. Whenever the sandbox even is able to conveniently defend what really matters to you (say, your private key files) is another matter.
Linux with snap or flatpak is far closer to mobile than whatever isolation Windows and MacOS have. The difference is in how widely and well implemented it is (it's neither).
I think he's referring to the time when desktop Linux was competing against the likes of Windows 98. At that time, it was common for household PCs to be multi-user because one computer was shared by several people in the house. But with Windows 98, there was no protection between users; anybody using the computer could read anybody else's files. Even if you didn't have an account on the computer, you could just press [cancel] at the login screen and have access to the computer. User accounts on Windows 98 were only for the convenience of having different desktop settings, there was no concept of files being owned by specific users.
Linux was a lot different at that time, in that it actually had a concept of users owning files. If you wanted to access another user's files without their permission you had to jump through more hoops like booting into single user mode.
single user == root only. While linux has a single user mode, it is rarely used. Certainly not everywhere "excluding some exotic and super fragile setups you might see in .edu networks"
What do you have in mind? I'm using terminal only and don't track desktop development. Whenever I have to run something I don't trust, I use another account or, if it demands elevated privileges, a virtual machine. I guess with desktop it's not much different?
Let’s imagine you compromise a telco and get past the hurdle of these tractors not having public IPs, they probably still won’t have any services listening on the network.
If they do have some services listening on the network, that’s probably going to be John Deere’s own software and not e.g. an ancient version of Exim.
Without more information this is just silly clickbait.
Those two countries do not do carrier ops, why would they care about this at all?