Your video, Interceptor 007 First Rain Event in LA - 35000 lbs of Waste, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, RIVERS | INTERCEPTOR™ 001 | Cleaning In Jakarta, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The simple point is that as soon as we realized the capability of the Zero we easily and quickly designed a plane(s) capable of combating it.

The Yak-3 didn't enter the war until 1944, at which point the war had massively turned in Western Theatre. For the bulk of the conflict, they were using the Yak-1.

The Mig 25 and Mig 31 are both interceptors, they are designed to fire from distance and evade. The Su 35 is designed for Air Superiority. We have held the edge in our capabilities for years compared to them.

Every expert I know of is skeptical of China's claimed Railgun weapon. As to why they would bother mounting it and making claims, why not? It is brinkmanship, making us think they have more capabilities than they do.

The laser rifle is a crowd deterrent weapon. It would serve almost no purpose in infantry combat because it cannot kill. Yes, it can burn things and cause pain, but that is all. Again, this was claimed to be far more effective than experts think during our diplomatic arguments over China's use of blinding lasers on aircraft. We have no hard evidence of it's capability.

Yes, Russia could sell such a missile to our enemies versus using it directly against us. The problem is that as soon as they do so, the genie is out of the bottle. It will be reverse engineered quickly and could be USED AGAINST THEM. No country gives or sells away it's absolute top level weaponry except to it's most trusted allies. Allies which, for all intents and purposes, know that using such a weapon against another nation state risks full out retaliation against not only them but the country that sold it to them.

Our carriers are excellent mobile platforms, but they are not our only way of mounting air strikes. If we were somehow in a conventional war situation, we could easily fly over and base our aircraft in allied countries for combat. Most of our nuclear capable aircraft are not carrier launched anyway. Even if somehow all of our carriers were taken out and somehow our SAC bombers were destroyed as well, we would still have more than enough land launched and submarine launched nuclear warheads to easily blanket our enemies.

My points remain:

1. It is in the greatest interest of our enemies to boast about weapon capabilities even if they are not effective yet.

2. Most well regarded experts consider many of these weapons to either be still in the research stage, early production stage (IE not available for years), or they are wildly over hyped.

3. There is no logical reason for our enemies to use these weapons or proliferate them to their closest allies unless the weapons can prevent a nuclear response. Merely mentioning a weapon that would have such a capability creates a situation that could lead to nuclear war, like SDI did. I don't know if you recall, but I do clearly, how massively freaked out the Soviets got over our SDI claims. For two years they started threatening nuclear war as being inevitable if we continued on the path we were, all the while aggressively trying to destabilize our relations with our allies. 1983 to 1985 was pretty fucking tense, not Cuban missile crisis level maybe, but damn scary. Putin has acted similarly over our attempts to set up a missile barrier in former satellite states of Russia, although we still haven't got to the SHTF level of the early 80's.

Hubris.

WW2 japan had fighters that flew faster, climbed quicker, had bigger guns, and turned quicker (a6m vs f4f). And we had intel reports that told us, but we ignored them because "we have the best stuff and nobody else can compete".

You see the same stuff today with China. China makes all of our microchips, all of our microelectronics, most of which are designed over there anyways (companies here just ask for a widget that does X and Y, and Chinese companies design+make it), yet we act like as if they are some technologically retarded place that only knows how to steal ip.

Russia has been at the forefront of rocketry since ww2. Nobody has systems that compare to their consistency and reliability. Not even the U.S.. The idea that Russia can't make a hyper sonic missile before the U.S., because it's Russia, is a non sequitur.

Also, Russia broke up as a country because guaranteed government jobs for all citizens, where you can't be fired and performance is not important, is going to destroy any economy. No one will produce, shelves will be empty, and money will be no more than paper. Combine that with making private business illegal (preventing people from economically helping themselves), and you have a recipe for economic disaster and social discontent.

This missile exists to swat down carrier groups on the cheap.
We're gonna need some powerful lasers, or our own hyper sonic interceptors, or else proliferation would instantly leave us isolated in the Americas (vis-a-vis power projection via conventional weaponry). Our only option for projecting power would be reduced to nuclear or nothing.

-scheherazade

From the Latvian National Fire and Rescue Service,Translated by Google...

"During the weekend, the VUGD received a call to a multi-apartment building where there was a suspicion that a person was going to jump through the fourth floor window. When arriving at the scene, firefighters rescuers realized that if they were trying to get into the apartment, one would most likely jump over the window. Thanks to the support of the neighbors, firefighters were able to enter the steep lowk in the apartment and prepare to grab this person in the fall. While one firefighter rescuer was waiting for a fall at the window, the other ensured that the interceptors could rescue the falling person firmly. Meanwhile, firefighters with mountaineering equipment tried to access people on the sill from the roof of the building, but the rescuers noticed that human hands had fallen and dropped. The firefighters below were able to catch the fallen people behind their feet and safely pass through the window. "
https://www.facebook.com/Latvianfirefighters/videos/2200601706622336/

I read on reddit, that the news reported, that the firefighters were on the third floor.

There's a LOT of things ignored in his theory.
Most important to me is the ridiculous 'lone wolf=interceptor' theory. They are no where near the same thing, with no possibility of turning one into the other even if he found another totally undamaged interceptor body, which is another impossibility in the post apocalyptic wasteland, he had the LAST of the V-8 interceptors, more to scavenge from simply don't exist.

It's not the same Max, clearly. Just consider the flashbacks to his child being killed....not the same as what happened to Mel Gibson's family in the first movie at all.

The idea that Fury Road is an imaginary re-telling of a story of Max by a third party makes some sense, and would explain a lot of the inconsistencies, like the interceptor existing and Max looking 'wrong'. Really, to me, that's the only explanation for all the inconsistency issues....it's a poorly remembered, highly embellished, third party re-telling of a story about the real Max, nothing else makes any sense to me.

A vid that may be of interest to those who like this. Where the new Mad Max movie fits in the timeline, and it involves the Interceptor... http://videosift.com/video/Where-the-New-Mad-Max-Movie-Fits-in-the-Mad-Max-Timeline

That is all well and good, but the F35 is not just a sniper. It's a multi-role aircraft that needs to be an interceptor, a bomber, and a close ground support plane. You can be a 'sniper' and hide long range in interceptor mode, but bombing and close ground support are not going to be as kind to a plane that relies completely on stealth to overcome it's shortcomings in maneuverability, etc.

Additionally, the sheer cost of the vehicle is going to make it prohibitive for our allies to purchase it, meaning that in NATO combat groups, we will have it and our allies won't. It also means that we can't offset the trillion dollar development cost in ally purchases. Of course, it is likely that we won't even try to export it for the risk of having the stealth breached. We didn't export the F22 for similar reasons and it is dead now.

The simple fact is that we have sunk a ton of money into a pit and for little return. There are still huge long term delays in Russian and Chinese stealth programs, so just like the F22, this plane is going to come into production with no real enemies to fight against. Are we going to risk sending these vs last gen or earlier systems when our older planes are still more advanced than those and cost far less?

We aren't going to stop making this plane, we've gone too far. But it is going to be just as much of a waste as the F22 and probably more of a debacle when the enemy does come up with hardware capable of defeating it's stealth capabilities. Once that happens, we have a plane that is worse than the previous generation facing enemies more than capable of taking it out of the sky.

I finally saw the movie, and I can't understand why they slapped the Mad Max name on it. I would have been happier if they made it a stand alone movie, maybe even a new series, but it almost seemed to me like they added 'Mad Max' as an after thought just for name brand recognition.
Having the last of the V8 Interceptors in it made no sense at all if you watched the first 3 movies, it was completely destroyed in Road Warrior, as it was in this movie (no spoiler, it's in the trailer) so someone please explain to me, how is the car supposed to be in both movies?
I still liked it.

Hmmmm,
* I don't care much about the continuity, it was always paper-thin in the previous movies anyway.
* But if it's a prequel, he must end up with a sawed off shotgun and a handful of dud shells. And a stray dog.
* I hope it doesn't turn into a 300-fest; that's a lot of shit jumping in slo-mo.
* I hope it doesn't get too MichaelBaysed, that's a lot of Orange And Teal.
* One-armed warlord Charlize Theron: more of that please.
* Max tied to that car-pillory thing: awesome idea. Turns a gimmick into a cultural thing of sort in that universe.
* ...and it's not a 'Pursuit Special' anymore. It's the last of the Interceptors.

Me, I like my science-fiction when they don't cheat and make up silly stuff like a 'selectable' blower. Anyone who knows even a tiny bit about how a roots supercharger works sees those scenes from TRW and groans. The blades of the impellers need to spin because the carburetor is sitting on top of it. No impellers turning, means no air or fuel passing it, means the engine no worky .

That being said, I could see how a Paxton (basically a belt driven turbo) style supercharger could be set up to work, using an electric clutch from a air conditioning pump and some interesting intake plumbing. Instead of the best of both worlds, it's probably the worst of both.

You'd be better off with a variable boost NO2 system.

Now, don't think that I don't know about the 1920s Mercedes engageable roots superchargers, it's just that the one on the Interceptor in the movie isn't that style, and they merely shot the engine starting up when Max "pulled the switch".

As mentioned above, this is a prequel to Road Warrior, part 1.5, so the 'V-8 interceptor' should be in it....BUT....it looked like they destroyed it in the trailer, and it HAS to come out of this movie intact to make any sense, because it's NOT destroyed at the start of the 'next' movie.
Also, you don't start your interceptor with the blower engaged, you just don't. The whole point of a 'selectable' blower is you can turn it off both for easier starting and better fuel economy. Come on guys!

All that said, I really can't wait for this. I'm taking my coma drugs now, someone please administer the antidote 2 days before the premier so I can get in line for tickets. Thanks.

Canada wasn't looking at the F-22 though, they were looking at the F-35. Imo, as an armchair Defense Minister, the Eurofighter fills the role of arctic interceptor that the F-35 was terrible at.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'F106' to 'F106, delta dart, interceptor, fighter jet, cold war, flat spin' - edited by calvados