Common sense would dictate that a military aircraft conducting military operations off the coast of a hostile nation tend to not want to broadcast their position to the world. So not outrageous, just unfortunate. It's extremely common.
the redcoats didn't wear colorful coats and form nice big lines because they were stupid. They beat Napolean using similar tactics. And they didn't lose to the US because of these tactics.
Maybe you should reflect on why people who have lead others in combat have decided that there should be rules to war before you declare that rules of war are a bad idea.
The Red Coats lost quite a few battles to their aged tactics against the Patriots. So much so that officers complained about the ungentlemanly conduct routinely in their correspondence.
As far as our modern, temporary notion of “rules of war,” go, it’s because it suited the victor and gives them what they feel is an edge and an air of superiority. I don’t say this to be smug either, just look at how well the Geneva Suggestions worked out for the North Vietnamese or the Taliban. They ignored the and won.
Like it or not, the modern nation-state’s notions of Rules of War are going to quickly become a bygone relic of a simpler time, as was a formal British fighting line.
The USA is the strongest military power in the world. They are not the underdog. If they resort to war crimes or unfairness, it's not because they are the underdogs; it's because this is what top dogs do. Let's not make excuses for them.
You jest, but even in the age of modern warfare, countries still actively declare war and formally notify the other country, even if a bit late, with a formal declaration. The notable exceptions being of course the USA and the USSR and Russia, which like to call their wars "police actions" and "special military operations".
I would contend that we live in an era of “5th Generation” undeclared wars between powers. I don’t personally draw a line between a missile attack and a shipment of fentanyl or cocaine which will kill citizens all the same.
On the other side it is perfectly visible on radar (and can be heard (and with jet having its own characteristic signature it can be tracked even by WWII microphone array like they did back then) and visible in binoculars from large distance in nice Caribbean weather), so it is hiding only from civilians. Security by obscurity kind of. That is especially so in the case of a slow large non-maneuvering tanker plane like here.
And why would a tanker plane come close to and even enter the hostile airspace?! may be one has to check Hegseth's Signal to get an answer for that, probably it is something like "big plane -> Scary!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mUbmJ1-sNs.
I can just about guarantee it has nothing to do with targeting and a lot to do with making Venezuela unsure when strikes are about to start, both for security of the forces launching the eventual strikes (if any) and to harass/wear-down Venezuelan air defenses by keeping them very alert.
If our aircaft were flying transponders-on during all these exercises then suddenly went dark, it’d signal imminent attack. This keeps them guessing. Possibly we’re even playing around with having them on some of the time for some aircraft, and off at other times.
We don’t do that with AWACS and such near Russia because we’re not posturing that we may attack them any day now, and want to avoid both accidental and “accidental” encounters with Russian weapons by making them very visible. In this case, an accidental engagement by Venezuelan forces probably isn’t something US leadership would be sad about.
I live near JBLM in Washington. I am routinely overflown by helicopters and planes (C-17s) often with their transponders off (I have an ADS-B receiver running on a VM). These are training flights that are not going anywhere outside of the Puget Sound region. For added fun, I'm also pretty close to several Sea-Tac approaches.
> is significantly more precise than what you will get with radar
Is that increase in precision much larger than the plane itself? If it's not then it couldn't possibly matter in this application.
Further radar is not a static image. The radar is constantly sweeping the sky, taking multiple measurements, and in some cases using filtering to avoid noise and jitter.
> GPS Lat & Long Barometric Altitude Ground speed & track angle Rate of climb/descent
You get or synthesize every one of those with radar as well.
Yes, ADS-B is significantly more precise than civilian primary radar returns. That's why the FAA is trying to move away from radar. The JetBlue near miss was about 150 miles from Curacao ATC which is beyond what most ASR systems cover (around half that).
Military radar is a different beast, but even then you're still trying to figure out what the returns mean. ADS-B explicitly says hey there are two aircraft in a tiny space. Civilian radar is likely not precise enough to identify two aircraft that close.
Isn't altitude information also one of the important things about ADS-B that radar lacks?
Although ADS-B is self reported and "vulnerable" to bad/spoofed info.
My CFI and I once saw ADS-B data from one of the startups near Palo Alto airport in California reporting supersonic speeds... at ground level, no less.
Edit: still have it in my email, heh. It was a Kitty Hawk Cora, N306XZ, reporting 933kts at 50'.
Even good stereopair like a WWI navy guns rangefinder, will give you all that info, of course not precise enough to lock a missile - well, transponder also wouldn't let you to anyway, and thus all that transponder precision is pointless in that context.
A missile only needs to get close enough for its sensors to take over for the final approach right? Transponder data should be quite enough for that, especially for a kc-46
Any of the methods i mentioned is enough to get missile close, except may be microphones as limited speed of sound means that the plane would have moved significantly from the observed position, though again even that would have allowed to put missile into the vicinity and in general direction.
Watching Ukraine videos there is new game in town though - relatively cheap IR cameras. Using IR, day or night, you can detect a jet plane from very large distances and just guide missile to the plane computer-game-joystick style.
I remember the days when movies shown on aircraft were edited for both content and dialogue.
These days, with so much content expected to be available at your fingertips, both in your seat and people bringing iPads on board loaded with R-rated streams, it's expected to be mindful of your neighbor on such things.
How that is distinctly "American" I don't quite understand.
I recall clickbait meaning "A way of describing what's behind a link, often inaccurately, so that you click on it". The completely non-controversial article seems to me to have a very hook-y headline which is exactly what the phrase refers to, at least to me. What does clickbait mean to you? Perhaps the meaning of the phrase has changed in different groups over time.
It’s not a buried sentence. It’s a section heading in large font saying “ The 777-200 Problem Is Not Safety. It Is Economics.”
Then there’s a whole paragraph stating “The Boeing 777-200 is not an unsafe airplane. As far as I can tell, that is not the issue even after the incident over Dulles over the weekend.”
Then just in case the reader jumped to conclusions, the first sentence of the conclusion again says it’s safe.
You are explaining exactly why the headline is clickbait: The article does not support the conclusions implied by the headline.
> just in case the reader jumped to conclusions
The author is correcting a problem of his own creation. He has already misled the reader with his headline. He means for the reader to misunderstand... and click.
Like you, I took an impression from the headline that safety was at issue — that's why I clicked on the article, only to find out that it was about economics instead. I don't know if it was deliberate clickbait, but that was the effect.
United seems to like to hang onto extremely old airplanes even as the number of these disruptions mount. We can argue how statistically they're safer etc but these events are extremely unsettling and disruptive for passengers and frankly it's lucky no one's been killed yet. One of these planes dropped a wheel on a parked car at SFO last year.
It's not hard to notice there are other major airlines that generally maintain newer widebody fleets.
> Note: Because of dependency on architecture and system changes to any current version of Apple operating systems (for example, macOS 26, iOS 26, and so on), not all known security issues are addressed in previous versions (for example, macOS 15, iOS 18, and so on).
Is there a new technological space race between Microsoft and Apple, to see who can engineer more dark patterns into their software, forcing unwanted updates onto its users?
These techniques used to be exclusive to spyware distributors.
Pro tip for anyone wanting to avoid liquid [gl]ass and install iOS 18.7.3: Apple is actively hiding 18.7.3 on most iPhones, despite the update showing on iPads. Perhaps a mistake, perhaps an attempt to force 26 onto users.
Simply select "iOS 18 Developer Beta" under beta updates (might need a developer account) and it will allow you to install it. The update currently offered is the production release.
Wow. I'm still on 18.7.1, saw the update to 18.7.2 yesterday (100% sure on this), but didn't want to install it at that moment as I needed the phone, and deferred the update to today.
Now I don't see any iOS 18 updates at all, only the iOS 26 prompts. What a dick move, Apple. Especially if this is a) a security update, and b) iOS 26 is known to run poorly on older phones like mine.
If your phone is laggy after liquid glass, Enabling "Reduce Motion" from Accessibility/Motion makes my 2020 iphone se much better. You can also disable transparency for even more frames, but it makes some UIs look particularly bad (because everything is transparent in frutiger aero/liquid glass)
Reduce Motion does give you the unfortunate side effect of realizing how much dead time there is between processing buttons. Many actions have a visible pause without apparent activity. I assume the software has a hardcoded delay for the animation or the program literally takes noticeable amount of time to process the action.
I can’t handle the swipe up to switch apps gesture with reduced motion it becomes too jarring. I set the glass to “tinted” and that’s about it. I wish they had a stronger disablement of just the glass.
But may break Safari, in which case you’ll have to close safari, toggle the setting and open it again. The navbars float in the middle of webpages otherwise.
Getting an iPhone model that comes with iOS 26 and cannot be downgraded: what a blunder. It’s not about Liquid Glass per se, more the ability to use your phone without being distracted by constant visual glitches and impaired keyboard typing experience.
I would say it's almost certainly a mistake or some side-effect of their system that rolls out updates where they don't happen exactly simultaneously.
Remember that Apple is also pushing that update out to serve their iPhones that cannot get iOS 26. Even if I was to maximize my cynicism, I don't think they presently use security point releases in the manner you are describing.
I don't think we can really ascertain intent, Apple has a long history of "the feature update IS the security update".
This partly relies on the "just update bro" attitude of sufficient fanbois to achieve upgrade momentum. Otherwise, let's be honest, no one would update, ever, our phones are too personal to be changing constantly.
This "bug" has been there for 2-3 days now. If it was a bug with their software delivery system, I assume it would have been fixed by now, it's affecting many people (with plenty of message board complaints to prove it).
Yes. Following a transition period of 2-3 months after each new major OS version, they withhold security updates for older OS versions from devices that could update to the new major version. The current 18.7.3 will likely be the last iOS 18 update made available to iPhone 11 and up, while the iPhone XS and XR, which can’t update to iOS 26, will continue to receive further security updates for iOS 18. This mode of operation has been the case for many years now.
Yes. Until a few years ago after a new major iOS version was released (eg. 26 for this year) the last major version (eg. 18 for this year) stopped getting updates, at least for phones that had access to the newer version. That changed a few years ago so that there was a period of overlap where both got updated.
For instance, look at the release history for iOS 12 and 13:
Nice though cosmetics are the least of my issues with 26. Usability really tanked across the OS, crap ton of baffling choices that make it much harder and unintuitive to use.
I don't like transparency but for me it's not the main problem with iOS 26, the main problem is that new controls (and their placement) waste too much space on a small iPhone SE screen.
reply