The 7 most ignored real world weapons.

[Starglider]

6. The Mortar in general - It has been, and always will be, the king of squad based assault tactics. It is quickly deployable, efficient, and accurate.

I agree that mortars are under-represented in fiction, and have been an extremely useful weapon for about a century now, but 'always will be' is going too far. There are technically plausible replacements for the mortar that may eventually beat it on response time and accuracy, when they finally become cheap enough to issue in bulk. For example sensor and computing tech is advancing so fast we will soon be able to build missiles the size of an RPG round with multimode (visual/IR/radar) sensors, vectored thrust and smart targeting. Making them cheaply enough to issue on a large scale will take another decade or two but we'll get there. Every squad may soon have man-portable micro-UAVs, carrying mortar round sized minature guided bombs. Or huge swarms of railgun-equipped, networked full-size UAVs may be routinely deployed to loiter over the battlefield and deliver near instantaneous fire support (and battlefield reconnaissance) as requested.

Mortars are routinely underappreciated, but don't say 'they will never be supplanted'. Never is a long time (though admittedly some sci-fi universes *cough* Trek *cough* phase them out without bothering to provide an adequate replacement).

The P-38 has always been my favorite WWII fighter.

Seconded.

Eh... I personally can't bring myself to call it sexy, I have an irrational dislike of delta wngs..

Burn the heretic! You can't seriously tell me that this and this isn't sexy. I still get pissed off every time I think about the idiocy and sheer vandalism of McNamara cancelling the B-70 and to a lesser extent the A-12.

[phongn]

I agree that mortars are under-represented in fiction, and have been an extremely useful weapon for about a century now, but 'always will be' is going too far. There are technically plausible replacements for the mortar that may eventually beat it on response time and accuracy, when they finally become cheap enough to issue in bulk. For example sensor and computing tech is advancing so fast we will soon be able to build missiles the size of an RPG round with multimode (visual/IR/radar) sensors, vectored thrust and smart targeting. Making them cheaply enough to issue on a large scale will take another decade or two but we'll get there. Every squad may soon have man-portable micro-UAVs, carrying mortar round sized minature guided bombs. Or huge swarms of railgun-equipped, networked full-size UAVs may be routinely deployed to loiter over the battlefield and deliver near instantaneous fire support (and battlefield reconnaissance) as requested.

Even then, such systems are likely to be significantly more expensive (and probably more unreliable) than the simple tube mortar, and that alone will keep them in service.

[SVPD]

ATGMs -- can't recall ever seeing one deployed in any fiction movie.

Reconaissance aircraft of all types.

[Starglider]

With third-world armies certainly. But for first world armies manpower (including training) is so expensive that even fairly expensive equipment is worth the cost in order to get maximum effectiveness out of the manpower you do have. Besides, with things like plastic semiconductors, 3D printing and the general steady increase in manufacturing automation (ultimately to nanoassemblers) the price of a minature guided missile could easily drop to less than twice that of an RPG round in a few decades time.

[Aaron]

With third-world armies certainly. But for first world armies manpower (including training) is so expensive that even fairly expensive equipment is worth the cost in order to get maximum effectiveness out of the manpower you do have. Besides, with things like plastic semiconductors, 3D printing and the general steady increase in manufacturing automation (ultimately to nanoassemblers) the price of a minature guided missile could easily drop to less than twice that of an RPG round in a few decades time.

Do you know what a mortor round costs? Less than a thousand dollars. Easily less than a couple hundred bucks because they are produced in bulk.

[PeZook]

Do you know what a mortor round costs? Less than a thousand dollars. Easily less than a couple hundred bucks because they are produced in bulk.

They can also be easily produced by simple, relative low-tech production lines. In other words, you can devote your ultra supertech manufacturing plants to making advanced goodies while still being able to provide your troops with a squad-level artillery weapon very, very, very cheaply. Why can't troops use both a simple mortar and a network of battlefield killer UAVs? It's not like future radios will weigh any more than today.

Also, production of mortar rounds can resume quickly after your factory gets bombed ; not to much with some sort of wacky nanotech-made self guided RPG round.

[Starglider]

Perhaps I'm taking 'always will be' too literally, but literal interpretation does seem to be the style for this board. 'Always' is a ridiculously strong statement, particularly for sci-fi fans. Yes, mortars make a lot of sense now, yes the manufacturing requirements of some of the currently feasible-sounding replacements sound pretty extreme to us. But the same arguments could be made about replacing naval cannon with guided missiles circa 1945. 'Sure minature versions of these new-fangled V2 things might eventually be more effective than a 15" gun, but they're ridiculously expensive compared to a shell, can only be built at a handful of specialist factories and are so unreliable!'. 50 years later, all major naval combatants carry huge racks of missiles and a token cannon if that. And that's just known but impractical technology, over a relatively short time difference - there's also all the future developments we just can't predict right now. 'Never' is a hell of a long time.

As to 'why not have both', the simple answer is that carrying capacity is strictly limited and logistics gets rapidly more challenging the more weapons systems you have to support. Sure it might be sensible to keep some old mortars stockpiled (though note that the US national guard doesn't have a reserve stockpile of swords and muskets) and maybe train your reserve troops with them, but you can't claim that they will 'always' be a key factor in squad-level combat. Of course you can't claim that squad-level combat between (near-)humans is always going to exist either, but that's more likely than a single weapon system remaining important for the entire future history of the human race.

[Shroom Man 777]

Hey, they're gonna outfit the latest US Navy ships with rail cannons now! So, yeah, we've gone back to the naval cannon

[Sam Or I]

Hey, they're gonna outfit the latest US Navy ships with rail cannons now! So, yeah, we've gone back to the naval cannon

I still think they should take the Iowa and refit them with rail guns, if nothing else, the intimation factor alone.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Burn the heretic! You can't seriously tell me that this and this isn't sexy. I still get pissed off every time I think about the idiocy and sheer vandalism of McNamara cancelling the B-70 and to a lesser extent the A-12.

Fair enough, however, I would like to defend myself by clarifying that I meant Fighters and Interceptors, I prefer swept-wing twin-engines.

I still think they should take the Iowa and refit them with rail guns, if nothing else, the intimation factor alone.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude, we have to do this!

[Starglider]

Fair enough, however, I would like to defend myself by clarifying that I meant Fighters and Interceptors, I prefer swept-wing twin-engines.

The YF-12 variant of the A-12 was an interceptor, before asshat McNamara cancelled it (and ordered all tooling destroyed) in favour of the POS F-111. Ironically his basic reasoning was correct, in that the soviets didn't have anything that actually needed an aircraft that capable to intercept, but the A-12 could've been developed into an awesome light bomber (complemented by a development of the XB-70 as a heavy bomber). Screw carpet bombing Vietnam with B-52s and taking heavy losses to SAMs; instead strap some cheap solid rocket motors onto some tungsten rods, release them at Mach 3.2 and 80,000 feet, and laugh as the hypersonic kinetic penetrators smash everything in the target area while the enemy SAMs and interceptors of the time couldn't touch the attackers. If they had the service life of the B52s they'd still be around today, pummelling targets on short notice with volleys of GPS guided hypersonic KEWs.

But yeah, simple deltas like the F-106 and Mirage series are rather boring to look at, while the F-14 is definitely photogenic (a lot of modern fighters have wings that are effectively cropped deltas - not sure if you're counting those as 'swept' or 'delta').

EDIT: Note that GPS guidance would only work for hypersonic projectiles in the upper atmosphere, before they build up too much of a plasma sheath. That's fine though, as the motor will have burnt out by then and they'll be on a very accurate ballistic trajectory - surface winds aren't going to significantly deflect heavy streamlined darts coming in at around mach 7. Plus the torrent of sonic booms should keep all the 'shock and awe' advocates happy.

[phongn]

The YF-12 variant of the A-12 was an interceptor, before asshat McNamara cancelled it (and ordered all tooling destroyed) in favour of the POS F-111. Ironically his basic reasoning was correct, in that the soviets didn't have anything that actually needed an aircraft that capable to intercept, but the A-12 could've been developed into an awesome light bomber (complemented by a development of the XB-70 as a heavy bomber).

The Soviets did have a high-speed bomber project (the T-4MS, which was cancelled - earlier versions looked something like a smaller B-70!). I'm not sure how effective the F-106 would've been against it, even with a non-castrated NORAD controlling them.

Screw carpet bombing Vietnam with B-52s and taking heavy losses to SAMs; instead strap some cheap solid rocket motors onto some tungsten rods, release them at Mach 3.2 and 80,000 feet, and laugh as the hypersonic kinetic penetrators smash everything in the target area while the enemy SAMs and interceptors of the time couldn't touch the attackers. If they had the service life of the B52s they'd still be around today, pummelling targets on short notice with volleys of GPS guided hypersonic KEWs.

I don't think we'd be able to get KEWs accurate enough back then, but we certainly could have tossed out plenty of AGMs and ruin North Vietnam's day.

But yeah, simple deltas like the F-106 and Mirage series are rather boring to look at, while the F-14 is definitely photogenic (a lot of modern fighters have wings that are effectively cropped deltas - not sure if you're counting those as 'swept' or 'delta').

Swept, I think - pure deltas tend to lack the tail wing - but I'm not an aerospace engineer. Howedar is the resident one here.

[Starglider]

The Soviets did have a high-speed bomber project (the T-4MS, which was cancelled - earlier versions looked something like a smaller B-70!). I'm not sure how effective the F-106 would've been against it, even with a non-castrated NORAD controlling them.

The T-4 wasn't a strategic bomber and didn't have the range to threaten the continental US. Details are scarce, but it seems doubtful that it could've sustained mach 3 any better than the Mig-25 could. As such existing US defences were probably adequate, though certainly the YF-12 would've been a sensible insurance policy against any future more advanced platforms. The B-70 and A-12 are astounding pieces of engineering and very capable aircraft in their own right, but it's also very interesting to speculate on what future developments would've occurred if the US hadn't abandoned the push towards hypersonic speeds. A next-generation mach 5 version of the Valkyrie would've made a great first stage for a two-stage spaceplane - the US might've avoided the whole STS fiasco.

I don't think we'd be able to get KEWs accurate enough back then, but we certainly could have tossed out plenty of AGMs and ruin North Vietnam's day.

Firstly the B-52s were doing mostly carpet bombing that doesn't require much in the way of accuracy anyway. Accuracy would only be an issue for A-12s striking specific targets. Secondly if you can make very consistent solid rocket motors (which we can) hypersonic kinetic weapons are actually more accurate than unguided iron bombs, as they're less affected by wind. The inherent advantages of kinetic weapons are that explosives have relatively low energy density compared to rocket fuel, which burns slower but can store up a lot of energy in the projectile's velocity, and that they get a lot of extra energy from the launch platform's speed and altitude (whereas a standard HE bomb gets very little). Finally they can very easily and cheaply be made into cluster munitions - no need for a few hundred separately fused bomblets, just include a small bursting charge set to go off at 5000 feet and you can shower a wide area with hypersonic tungsten flechettes - much better than HE carpet bombing for killing dispersed hardened targets and unlike conventional cluster bombs no lingering UXO risk to civillians.

But no, they're not a replacement for precision guided weapons for doing pinpoint strikes. You'd probably have to wait for the 90s and cheap GPS for that.

Swept, I think - pure deltas tend to lack the tail wing - but I'm not an aerospace engineer.

Are canards not an acceptable substitute, visually speaking?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Fair enough, however, I would like to defend myself by clarifying that I meant Fighters and Interceptors, I prefer swept-wing twin-engines.

The YF-12 variant of the A-12 was an interceptor, before asshat McNamara cancelled it (and ordered all tooling destroyed) in favour of the POS F-111.

The YF-12 like the SR-71 is a beautiful bird, but it's hardly a conventional Interceptor, and it would have only carried three AIM-47B's, not that nuclear tipped warheads aren't great, but they could've at least fitted an autocannon or two, in the event that they run out of missiles.

But yeah, simple deltas like the F-106 and Mirage series are rather boring to look at, while the F-14 is definitely photogenic (a lot of modern fighters have wings that are effectively cropped deltas - not sure if you're counting those as 'swept' or 'delta').

Yeah, looking at the Raptor and revise my statement by saying I don't like conventional Delta wings on fighter aircraft.

[Starglider]

The YF-12 like the SR-71 is a beautiful bird, but it's hardly a conventional Interceptor, and it would have only carried three AIM-47B's, not that nuclear tipped warheads aren't great, but they could've at least fitted an autocannon or two, in the event that they run out of missiles.

The YF-12 would never manage to bring its guns to bear in a dogfight - it had the speed and acceleration to enter and leave combat at will (and outrun most air to air missiles of the time), but its low speed agility was so poor it would be a sitting duck at subsonic speeds and cannon ranges. When intercepting bombers autocannon might be useful for chewing up any remaining bombers after the missiles were used up, but frankly I suspect an extra missile would be a more useful allocation of payload especially considering that the number of interceptors would likely be on a par with the number of bombers.

The aircraft you're looking for is probably the F-108, which is a contemporary design that never even reached the prototype stage. It had a bit less speed and a lot less range than the YF-12, but a lot more agility and yes, was intended to carry dual Vulcan cannon as well as missiles and rockets. I kinda like the design myself, somewhat like a cross between a B-70 and an F-15 - it's dual engine but still a delta. Ultimately though the F-15 would be a more useful fighter, leaving (in my fantasy history) the YF-12 to handle very high speed interception and tactical hypersonic bombing and no real role for the F-108.

[MKSheppard]

Actually no, one of the armament options for the F-12B production version had a M-61 Vulcan.

Stats were:

(ignore the caps, I was typing it from a book, and it was easier to do so)

F-12B - OPERATIONAL VERSION OF THE YF-12A, USAF WANTED 93 F-12B. ORDERED INTO PRODUCTION 14 MAY 1965. ARMED WITH 4 x AIM-47S. TOP SPEED OF MACH 3.5 (2,600 MPH) AT 90-100,000 FT. CAPABLE OF DESTROYING BOMBERS AT ANY SPEED OR ALTITUDE MORE THAN 100 MILES AWAY.

F-12B SPECS
2 MAN CREW
2 X PW J58 MODEL JT11D-20A 34,000 LBS EACH
70,000 LB EMPTY
125,000 LB GROSS WEIGHT
101 FT 8 IN LENGHT (31M)
55 FT 7 IN WINGSPAN
1795 SQ FT WING AREA
18 FT 6 IN HEIGHT
MAX SPEED IN EXCESS OF MACH 3.3 (2,250 MPH) MAX RANGE UNREFUELLED 3,000 MILES, MAX CEILING 100,000 FT.

Armament Options:

3 x AIM-47B
1 x M61 20MM VULCAN

OR

4 X AIM-47B (No Cannon)

-------

ONE CAPABILITY OF THE PROPOSED F-12B WAS THAT OF INTERCEPTING INCOMING NUCLEAR WARHEADS FROM INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES. THIS LITTLE-KNOWN CONCEPT WAS ACTUALLY TESTED, AND THE YF-12A'S AN/'ASG-18 DID IN FACT LOCK ONTO BOEING LGM-30 MINUTEMAN ICBMS LAUNCHED FROM VANDENBERG AFB, CCALIFORNA ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. NO MISSILES WERE ACTUALLY FIRED AT THESE FRIENDLY TARGETS HOWEVER.

----------

Other variatns were

B-12 - DEDICATED STRATEGIC BOMBER, KILLED BY LEMAY WHO DID NOT WANT ANY CHALLENGERS FOR B-70, REVIVED AS RS-71. HAD A ROTARY LAUNCHER HOLDING FOUR NUCLEAR STORES.

FB-12 - FIGHTER BOMBER, SIMILAR TO F-12B, HELD TWO AIM-7E OR -7F IN TWO FRONT WEAPON BAYS, AND TWO AGM-69AS IN TWO REAR WEAPONS BAYS. PROPOSED RADAR WERE AN/AWG-10 AND AN/APQ-114 ATTACK RADAR (LATER USED ON F-111A AND -111B), AND AN/APQ-130 ATTACK RADAR (LATER USED ON F-111D)

[phongn]

The T-4 wasn't a strategic bomber and didn't have the range to threaten the continental US. Details are scarce, but it seems doubtful that it could've sustained mach 3 any better than the Mig-25 could.

Are you sure? Some brief Googling (as inaccurate as it can be) indicates some reasonably long range as long as it isn't sprinting at supersonic speeds. The Russians might also done in-flight refueling as well.

As such existing US defences were probably adequate, though certainly the YF-12 would've been a sensible insurance policy against any future more advanced platforms. The B-70 and A-12 are astounding pieces of engineering and very capable aircraft in their own right, but it's also very interesting to speculate on what future developments would've occurred if the US hadn't abandoned the push towards hypersonic speeds. A next-generation mach 5 version of the Valkyrie would've made a great first stage for a two-stage spaceplane - the US might've avoided the whole STS fiasco.

There's a defense analyst here who writes some speculative (alt-history) fiction in which the USAF went "higher and faster" - I think most of his turboramjet and turbojet-powered aircraft topped out around Mach 3.4 or so. Indeed, he had a modified Valkyrie (eight engines) serving as the first-stage for TSTO spacecraft.

Eventually he has turboscramjet and tri-mode turboscramjet/rocket engines start appearing around the 1980s (IIRC), paving the way for SSTO spaceplanes and ridiculously high transit speeds for atmospheric aircraft.

Firstly the B-52s were doing mostly carpet bombing that doesn't require much in the way of accuracy anyway. Accuracy would only be an issue for A-12s striking specific targets. Secondly if you can make very consistent solid rocket motors (which we can) hypersonic kinetic weapons are actually more accurate than unguided iron bombs, as they're less affected by wind.

Well, I'd hardly call it "carpet bombing" - the BUFFs may have been striking area targets over Hanoi but they were trying to be relatively precise. I think the USAF also had techniques to compensate for the wind on the way down.

[Howedar]

But yeah, simple deltas like the F-106 and Mirage series are rather boring to look at, while the F-14 is definitely photogenic (a lot of modern fighters have wings that are effectively cropped deltas - not sure if you're counting those as 'swept' or 'delta').

Swept, I think - pure deltas tend to lack the tail wing - but I'm not an aerospace engineer. Howedar is the resident one here.

Strictly speaking, in my opinion the idea of a "cropped delta" is something of a misnomer. The defining non-geometric characteristic of a delta wing is how it generates lift at high angles of attack. The leading edges of a delta wing are very sharp, and at high angles of attack they form stable vortex structures that result in low pressure areas above the wing, resulting in lift.

This is the best small picture I can find of the phenomenon.

Interested readers might also look here, or here (the leading edge extension is essentially a small delta wing).

This sharp leading edge, and associated vortex lift at high angles of attack, is a required characteristic of delta wings due to their very poor stall characteristics (in the traditional separation-of-flow sense of the term).

In contrast, a standard quasi-rectangular wing has acceptable stall characteristics and so does not require the sharp leading edge and vortex lift (although these would be less effective on a longer, narrower wing anyway).

Thus to term (say) an F/A-18 wing a "cropped delta" simply because it has no trailing-edge sweep does not properly characterize the wing. As a matter of fact, the F/A-18 wing (or F-16, or F-15, etc.) is simply a swept wing, nothing more. The governing aerodynamic sweep turns out to be the sweep of the quarter-chord, which takes into account both the leading and trailing edge sweep angles.

[Starglider]

The T-4 wasn't a strategic bomber and didn't have the range to threaten the continental US.

Are you sure? Some brief Googling (as inaccurate as it can be) indicates some reasonably long range as long as it isn't sprinting at supersonic speeds.

I can't be sure, as I'm neither an aerospace engineer nor privy to soviet military secrets. However the planform definitely looks highly optimised for supersonic flight, not subsonic cruise. The XB-70 was so optimised for mach 3 flight that if an engine failed it was actually more fuel efficient to engage afterburner on some of the remaining engines than to try and cruise at a lower speed (at least according to my copy of 'The Ride to Valhalla'). Generally the stated combat range for the T-4 is around half that given for the XB-70, sufficient to strike Europe or China but not to threaten the US. It is consistently listed as a 'reconnaissance and interceptor aircraft', though clearly a light bomber variant would be possible. I'd also note that the XB-70's projected range was scaled back during testing, and due to the planned high-energy zip fuels not becoming available. The T-4 was apparently never flown past mach 1.3 (if it was, the flight was kept secret), but it does look like soviet engine technology of the time couldn't handle the mass flow, thrust and consequent heat levels for sustained mach 3 flight (as the Mig-25 illustrated). Though certainly another few more years of research and the appropriate improvements to the engines and airframe would've eventually overcome that.

The Russians might also done in-flight refueling as well.

Maybe, but the USSR never developed or deployed aerial refueling to the extent that the US did. It seems more likely that if the T4 had been successful and the political will had been behind high-speed bombers there would have been a follow-on scaled-up aircraft more closely equivalent to the XB-70. The Soviets did have much more access to and infrastructure for using titanium than the USA did, and if the XB-70 could've been made of titanium it would've been able to go significantly further and faster.

There's a defense analyst here who writes some speculative (alt-history) fiction in which the USAF went "higher and faster" - I think most of his turboramjet and turbojet-powered aircraft topped out around Mach 3.4 or so. Indeed, he had a modified Valkyrie (eight engines) serving as the first-stage for TSTO spacecraft.

That certainly sounds interesting. Do you have a link or a search term to get me started?

Eventually he has turboscramjet and tri-mode turboscramjet/rocket engines start appearing around the 1980s (IIRC), paving the way for SSTO spaceplanes and ridiculously high transit speeds for atmospheric aircraft.

Had the HOTOL project been funded and the LACE engines worked as designed that would be another route to the same result; hypersonic platforms in the 80s. Alas successive (particularly Labour) UK governments were even better at cutting promising military aerospace projects right before they bore fruit than the US.

Nice clarification Howedar, thanks.

[Stormbringer]

There's a defense analyst here who writes some speculative (alt-history) fiction in which the USAF went "higher and faster" - I think most of his turboramjet and turbojet-powered aircraft topped out around Mach 3.4 or so. Indeed, he had a modified Valkyrie (eight engines) serving as the first-stage for TSTO spacecraft.

That certainly sounds interesting. Do you have a link or a search term to get me started?

Stuart Slade's The Big One and attached universe

[phred]

The P-38 has always been my favorite WWII fighter.

Seconded.

The motion has been seconded. All in favor say aye?

Eh... I personally can't bring myself to call it sexy, I have an irrational dislike of delta wngs..

Burn the heretic! You can't seriously tell me that this and this isn't sexy.

although the Blackbird is a beautiful aircraft I dont really consider it a standard delta wing, seeing as how they're interrupted by those engine thingies. And I just cant bring myself to like the Valkyrie.

[Shinn Langley Soryu]

Looking at the Wiki article on the XF-108 Rapier, I'm immediately getting a Tupolev Tu-28 vibe from it. Even though the Rapier has a delta wing and the Tu-28 has conventional control surfaces, they're more or less the same size and were intended for the same purpose.

Speaking of which, the Tu-28 itself is one of the most underappreciated Soviet aircraft; MiGs are more glamourous, and the Tu-28's comrade-in-arms, the Sukhoi Su-15, is more notorious for shooting down Korean airliners than anything else.

[Starglider]

Looking at the Wiki article on the XF-108 Rapier, I'm immediately getting a Tupolev Tu-28 vibe from it.

Frankly I'd forgotten that aircraft existed (I spent a lot more time reading military and aviation material when I was younger than recently), but that's hardly surprising when it looks so unremarkable. Nearly half the speed and ceiling of the XF-108, seemingly awful agility and crappy radar and missiles, compared to the XF-108's advanced active homing missiles and pulse-doppler radar. On the plus side, it actually made it to series production. On the minus side, it looks pretty dull and doesn't seem to have had any interesting engagements.

Even though the Rapier has a delta wing and the Tu-28 has conventional control surfaces, they're more or less the same size and were intended for the same purpose.

True, but the Rapier was a full generation ahead in technology.

Speaking of which, the Tu-28 itself is one of the most underappreciated Soviet aircraft

I'm getting a 'most mediocre' vibe rather than 'most underappreciated'.

And I just cant bring myself to like the Valkyrie.

What's not to like about it?

Stuart Slade's The Big One and attached universe

Thanks.

[phred]

It just doesn't "do it" for me. Seriously my taste is severely arbitrary. I like the Mig-29, but not the F-15 despite their being fairly similar aircraft. Also the F-4 is probably the oldest jet powered aircraft that I truly like.

Sorry about continuing the thread hijack

[Starglider]

Slade's The Big One and attached universe

That guy's military fiction is really, really good - better than a lot of alternate history military novels I've read. I particularly liked the naval battle in 'Ride of the Valkyries'. Unfortunately from what I've read so far, his science fiction isn't so good, though it's still interesting. Thanks for pointing it out to me.