Scott Dorsey wrote:
That's part of why it was a failure. The US invested a huge amount of money
in defending against a bomber attack, and they continued investing that money
years after it became clear that missiles were a more pressing threat.

That to me does not make any sense. In an arms race, you pay (or invest)
in something that protects you NOW in the hope that it works while you
invest in something that will protect you in the future.

I'm not fond of the whole concept of an arms race, but sometimes we have
one forced upon us.



Well, for that matter neither do bombers, if they are equipped with INS
systems much like the missiles would be. In fact, bombers were probably
more effective in an RF blackout, seeing as how they were navigated by
human beings with maps and pilotage as well as by electronic systems.

They may not of had good maps, etc at the time. The Soviet Union was not
as well equipped as the USAF.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Well, for that matter neither do bombers, if they are equipped with INS
systems much like the missiles would be. In fact, bombers were probably
more effective in an RF blackout, seeing as how they were navigated by
human beings with maps and pilotage as well as by electronic systems.

They may not of had good maps, etc at the time. The Soviet Union was not
as well equipped as the USAF.

Sheesh, they should have joined AAA.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Well, for that matter neither do bombers, if they are
equipped with INS
systems much like the missiles would be. In fact,
bombers were probably
more effective in an RF blackout, seeing as how they
were navigated by
human beings with maps and pilotage as well as by
electronic systems.

They may not of had good maps, etc at the time. The Soviet
Union was not
as well equipped as the USAF.

Sheesh, they should have joined AAA.
--scott

LOL.
I don't think it would take much of a map to find Los
Angeles or New York City or any other major U.S. city.
Conelrad was sort of locking the barn door not only after
the horse was stolen but after horses weren't used any more.
Until about fifteen years ago you could still see where
one of the large stages at Warner Brothers was marked
"Lockheed Aircraft", a left over from WW-2. WB is a few
miles from the old Lockheed plant and looks sort of like it.
Conelrad belonged to the thinking of the same era.


--

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL

LOL.
I don't think it would take much of a map to find Los
Angeles or New York City or any other major U.S. city.
Conelrad was sort of locking the barn door not only after
the horse was stolen but after horses weren't used any more.
Until about fifteen years ago you could still see where
one of the large stages at Warner Brothers was marked
"Lockheed Aircraft", a left over from WW-2. WB is a few
miles from the old Lockheed plant and looks sort of like it.
Conelrad belonged to the thinking of the same era.

Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL


Now we have Google Maps that can be used for pin point targeting by pesky
salesmen, paparazzi and any other nefarious character. The threat is more
real now.

JB wrote:
Now we have Google Maps that can be used for pin point targeting by pesky
salesmen, paparazzi and any other nefarious character. The threat is more
real now.

You have no idea. Hamas has been using them to target rockets.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
Now we have Google Maps that can be used for pin point targeting by
pesky
salesmen, paparazzi and any other nefarious character. The threat is
more
real now.

You have no idea. Hamas has been using them to target rockets.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

It's just simple math once you have the co-ordinates and elevations.
Not counting wind drift and thrust variations. You all have my prayers.
Pray for us too. We are besieged by idiots who don't seem to connect
what they want to any sense of reality. History has no meaning for them.

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
That's part of why it was a failure. The US invested a huge amount of money
in defending against a bomber attack, and they continued investing that money
years after it became clear that missiles were a more pressing threat.

That to me does not make any sense. In an arms race, you pay (or invest)
in something that protects you NOW in the hope that it works while you
invest in something that will protect you in the future.

I'm not fond of the whole concept of an arms race, but sometimes we have
one forced upon us.



Well, for that matter neither do bombers, if they are equipped with INS
systems much like the missiles would be. In fact, bombers were probably
more effective in an RF blackout, seeing as how they were navigated by
human beings with maps and pilotage as well as by electronic systems.

They may not of had good maps, etc at the time. The Soviet Union was not
as well equipped as the USAF.

Geoff.

Geoffrey;

You should know that there is no such thing as a temporary governmental
project. And that's what these amounted to.

Dave