Ah fuck off. I know there are F-35s stationed in Japan. I said that much. It's you who seem to be having a tone deaf problem. A coreographed display, like that one, is quite different from a real mission. The last reports I have claim VFMA-121 are using Block 2B, at best they could be using Block 3i. That means at best they have a G limit of 5.5. Nor can they even hit Mach 1.6. Less if they are loaded with fuel. This is documented. Do you even know what that means? The North Koreans may have a crap air force in the region, but if things really go to the shitter, like when the Korean War happened, when the Chinese and Soviet Union entered the war, you would have Chinese and Russian Over-The-Horizon radar stations to contend with and their air resources. The Russians could easily mobilize their air power resources in the Vladivostok area, and the Chinese in the Beijing area, over there. The Chinese will have more J-20's, alone, operational at the end of this year than that single F-35B squadron. If it wasn't for the F-22 and older fighter assets, the situation there would be quite grim.
I think you mean THREE variants. The A (Air Force), B (Marines), C (Navy). However, the Naval version, F-35C, hasn't even reached IOC yet. So you are doubly wrong. The USMC, much like they did for the V-22 Osprey, declared IOC quickly for an aircraft which wasn't combat ready yet. Just to claim the program was a success so it wouldn't get shitcanned. As for the rest, I'll just copy and paste my response from the other thread: "Active deployment... Which important missions in Korea are those? That's BS. AFAIK the only F-35s in the region are in USAF bases in Japan. The F-35 has been used in ZERO combat missions so far. The ones that are available right now are being used for pilot training. Know why? While the latest Block 3i airplanes are "combat capable", i.e. they have weapons support, the fact is they have severe restrictions in the flight control authority software. Block 3i airplanes cannot do high-g maneuvers due to the software restrictions (they can't reach the 9g design limit). Nor can they fly at the top Mach speed in the design limit. Presently the F-35 is a POS for air combat. This will supposedly be resolved once the Block 3F software update is available. Whenever that happens.
The refit costs and what's involved in the refits, it's all described in publicly available documents. You just have to read about it."
Active deployment... Which important missions in Korea are those? That's BS. AFAIK the only F-35s in the region are in USAF bases in Japan. The F-35 has been used in ZERO combat missions so far. The ones that are available right now are being used for pilot training. Know why? While the latest Block 3i airplanes are "combat capable", i.e. they have weapons support, the fact is they have severe restrictions in the flight control authority software. Block 3i airplanes cannot do high-g maneuvers due to the software restrictions (they can't reach the 9g design limit). Nor can they fly at the top Mach speed in the design limit. Presently the F-35 is a POS for air combat. This will supposedly be resolved once the Block 3F software update is available. Whenever that happens.
The refit costs and what's involved in the refits, it's all described in publicly available documents. You just have to read about it.
Another example: the Tornado has a terrain following attack radar, and the Harrier doesn't. Also, the Harrier historically has had quite a high number of hull loss accidents and fatalities compared with other airplanes. It's basically a curiosity airplane with vertical takeoff and landing. I've never heard of one single instance where that feature was actually useful in combat and usually is deleterious to the payload.
Actually the Tornado is likely the best platform of all those you mentioned for close air support. Not only does it carry a lot of payload, it has a pretty low stall speed because of the variable geometry wings. The Tornado is a fighter-bomber made for low-level penetration of enemy airspace at high Mach speeds.
Freescale, much like Intel, keeps a lot of inventory and old product production up for these purposes. I don't expect that to be a problem. OTOH, I seem to remember the F-22 actually used DEC Alpha CPUs. Good luck getting those now.
The Chinese already put the J-20 into service. Only problem they have is they have no decent engines for it yet. It's kinda like the F-14 when it came out. Nice plane, shame about the engines.
It's supposed to cost half as much in the end. It only has one engine and it's much simpler at that. It has a lot less parts than an F-22.
Problem is the airplane design isn't actually finished get. The whole idea about concurrency (i.e. starting production before the airplane design was finished) was the problem. The DoD got like a hundred planes at least which can't be upgraded to a combat ready version without tremendous upgrade costs.
To a large degree what happened was because of cost cutting. Recently to make the renewables push, and to save the banks, a lot of things were pushed by the wayside. There was some technical failure as well. In Europe, for example, there was a plan to have their own space station and mini-space shuttle in the late 1980s. Because of the cost of the German reunification the station was cancelled, and only the Columbus laboratory on the ISS was made, the shuttle was an utter technical failure because there was no clear chain of command. The design kept changing all the time which meant a lot of money was spent and nothing was built.
As an example of the cost cutting the Vinci upper stage LOX/LH2 engine design has been finished for years already and it hasn't been put into use because there's no budget for it. Ariane 5 ECA cost more than expected because of issues with Vulcain 2 and to reduce costs they cut that. To a degree these kinds of costs should be expected in any program and cutting the new upper stage was a stupid decision. It would have allowed the use of Ariane 5 to launch multiple payloads in different orbits for satellite constellations like Galileo.
There was also a plan to design a LOX/Methane engine with the Russians (in the late 1990s) much like what SpaceX is doing with Raptor. This was called the VOLGA program and was conducted between French CNES and the Russian Keldysh Research Center. One of the early 1990s design proposals even had a reusable flyback first stage with this engine (there were also more expensive TSTO proposals). Guess what no funding ever came for it. When the funding did come, for Ariane 6, they initially decided to make it use all solids in the first stages, which is non-cost competitive, but was a way to indirectly fund R&D on the French SLBM infrastructure. Then again, if the French are paying for the rocket, I suppose they should get to choose the design. To a large degree the main issue has been the German have been dragging their feet with any investments on new launcher capability.
With nuclear you have to see their largest success was mass construction of what was originally a Westinghouse reactor design. They don't know how to properly design a new reactor and that's why EPR has been a failure. Well that and the Germans pulling out mid-project, as usual, screwing everyone over in joint projects as is typical for them.
I don't know what's supposedly the problem with the trains. They seem to be doing fine to me.
No shit. Back when they were trying to hype it in the web media, someone reported said he had to wait in line to get one from a vending machine in New York or something. Was it that hard to make an online store for something like this? Or even sell them in Amazon from the get go? https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/2...
Like any novelty item you would expect something that was released almost a year ago to have little willing customers left by now. They need to do a product refresh it they want to sell more.
Actually I thought Apple would do fine ever since they bought NeXT and announced they were going to replace MacOS with a NeXT derived operating system. Apple was selling the Mac equivalent of Windows 3.1 with a beautified UI in 1996. It took them until 1999 to get MacOS X in working condition (develop the Blue Box and Carbon, etc). Around that time I was using Windows 2000. The first iPod never exactly took off because, like you said, it's not like it was the only MP3 player in the market, and it used a Firewire port which most PCs back then didn't have. I don't think there was an iTunes for Windows even. It was something for Apple users basically. Only with iTunes for Windows and the USB versions did it ever reach mass market appeal.
In hindsight I probably should have bought their stock back then but again I was never a fan of playing in the stock market.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like Stalin said, it isn't your vote that matters, it's the people who count the votes that matter.
The problems isn't the resources. There are plenty to manufacture all the electric cars you want. The problem is time, and time alone.
Ah fuck off. I know there are F-35s stationed in Japan. I said that much. It's you who seem to be having a tone deaf problem. A coreographed display, like that one, is quite different from a real mission. The last reports I have claim VFMA-121 are using Block 2B, at best they could be using Block 3i. That means at best they have a G limit of 5.5. Nor can they even hit Mach 1.6. Less if they are loaded with fuel. This is documented. Do you even know what that means? The North Koreans may have a crap air force in the region, but if things really go to the shitter, like when the Korean War happened, when the Chinese and Soviet Union entered the war, you would have Chinese and Russian Over-The-Horizon radar stations to contend with and their air resources. The Russians could easily mobilize their air power resources in the Vladivostok area, and the Chinese in the Beijing area, over there. The Chinese will have more J-20's, alone, operational at the end of this year than that single F-35B squadron. If it wasn't for the F-22 and older fighter assets, the situation there would be quite grim.
I think you mean THREE variants. The A (Air Force), B (Marines), C (Navy). However, the Naval version, F-35C, hasn't even reached IOC yet. So you are doubly wrong. The USMC, much like they did for the V-22 Osprey, declared IOC quickly for an aircraft which wasn't combat ready yet. Just to claim the program was a success so it wouldn't get shitcanned. As for the rest, I'll just copy and paste my response from the other thread:
"Active deployment... Which important missions in Korea are those? That's BS. AFAIK the only F-35s in the region are in USAF bases in Japan. The F-35 has been used in ZERO combat missions so far. The ones that are available right now are being used for pilot training. Know why? While the latest Block 3i airplanes are "combat capable", i.e. they have weapons support, the fact is they have severe restrictions in the flight control authority software. Block 3i airplanes cannot do high-g maneuvers due to the software restrictions (they can't reach the 9g design limit). Nor can they fly at the top Mach speed in the design limit. Presently the F-35 is a POS for air combat. This will supposedly be resolved once the Block 3F software update is available. Whenever that happens.
The refit costs and what's involved in the refits, it's all described in publicly available documents. You just have to read about it."
Active deployment... Which important missions in Korea are those? That's BS. AFAIK the only F-35s in the region are in USAF bases in Japan. The F-35 has been used in ZERO combat missions so far. The ones that are available right now are being used for pilot training. Know why? While the latest Block 3i airplanes are "combat capable", i.e. they have weapons support, the fact is they have severe restrictions in the flight control authority software. Block 3i airplanes cannot do high-g maneuvers due to the software restrictions (they can't reach the 9g design limit). Nor can they fly at the top Mach speed in the design limit. Presently the F-35 is a POS for air combat. This will supposedly be resolved once the Block 3F software update is available. Whenever that happens.
The refit costs and what's involved in the refits, it's all described in publicly available documents. You just have to read about it.
Another example: the Tornado has a terrain following attack radar, and the Harrier doesn't. Also, the Harrier historically has had quite a high number of hull loss accidents and fatalities compared with other airplanes. It's basically a curiosity airplane with vertical takeoff and landing. I've never heard of one single instance where that feature was actually useful in combat and usually is deleterious to the payload.
Actually the Tornado is likely the best platform of all those you mentioned for close air support. Not only does it carry a lot of payload, it has a pretty low stall speed because of the variable geometry wings. The Tornado is a fighter-bomber made for low-level penetration of enemy airspace at high Mach speeds.
Freescale, much like Intel, keeps a lot of inventory and old product production up for these purposes. I don't expect that to be a problem. OTOH, I seem to remember the F-22 actually used DEC Alpha CPUs. Good luck getting those now.
The Chinese already put the J-20 into service. Only problem they have is they have no decent engines for it yet. It's kinda like the F-14 when it came out. Nice plane, shame about the engines.
It's supposed to cost half as much in the end. It only has one engine and it's much simpler at that. It has a lot less parts than an F-22.
Problem is the airplane design isn't actually finished get. The whole idea about concurrency (i.e. starting production before the airplane design was finished) was the problem. The DoD got like a hundred planes at least which can't be upgraded to a combat ready version without tremendous upgrade costs.
Here's a paper on the VOLGA engine:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/1...
Anyway, as usual, opportunities lost in Europe because of lack of political vision.
s/early 1990s/early 2000s/g
To a large degree what happened was because of cost cutting. Recently to make the renewables push, and to save the banks, a lot of things were pushed by the wayside. There was some technical failure as well. In Europe, for example, there was a plan to have their own space station and mini-space shuttle in the late 1980s. Because of the cost of the German reunification the station was cancelled, and only the Columbus laboratory on the ISS was made, the shuttle was an utter technical failure because there was no clear chain of command. The design kept changing all the time which meant a lot of money was spent and nothing was built.
As an example of the cost cutting the Vinci upper stage LOX/LH2 engine design has been finished for years already and it hasn't been put into use because there's no budget for it. Ariane 5 ECA cost more than expected because of issues with Vulcain 2 and to reduce costs they cut that. To a degree these kinds of costs should be expected in any program and cutting the new upper stage was a stupid decision. It would have allowed the use of Ariane 5 to launch multiple payloads in different orbits for satellite constellations like Galileo.
There was also a plan to design a LOX/Methane engine with the Russians (in the late 1990s) much like what SpaceX is doing with Raptor. This was called the VOLGA program and was conducted between French CNES and the Russian Keldysh Research Center. One of the early 1990s design proposals even had a reusable flyback first stage with this engine (there were also more expensive TSTO proposals). Guess what no funding ever came for it. When the funding did come, for Ariane 6, they initially decided to make it use all solids in the first stages, which is non-cost competitive, but was a way to indirectly fund R&D on the French SLBM infrastructure. Then again, if the French are paying for the rocket, I suppose they should get to choose the design. To a large degree the main issue has been the German have been dragging their feet with any investments on new launcher capability.
With nuclear you have to see their largest success was mass construction of what was originally a Westinghouse reactor design. They don't know how to properly design a new reactor and that's why EPR has been a failure. Well that and the Germans pulling out mid-project, as usual, screwing everyone over in joint projects as is typical for them.
I don't know what's supposedly the problem with the trains. They seem to be doing fine to me.
It took a war for Portugal to become independent again. With support from foreign military powers. Are you ready for that?
There's more to Spain than that. The Basque nation and Madrid also have high density industrial facilities and healthy economies.
The South had feeble military industrial capacity and a weak Navy. That's how they lost the war.
Portugal is a bad example since it's been independent for centuries. The Czech-Slovak split is probably more to the point.
Typical Apple. Form over function.
They already made smartphones which couldn't make phone calls, so I guess this is just one more instance in that vein.
Yeah that should be really cheap. Last I heard here In Europe we're gonna be paying off the loans to build the damned things for at least 20 years.
If it's just the blades and the generator didn't get bent out of shape...
Notice that it's 27% from renewables in over a decade from now. It basically means they'll be burning natural gas from North Africa.
No shit. Back when they were trying to hype it in the web media, someone reported said he had to wait in line to get one from a vending machine in New York or something. Was it that hard to make an online store for something like this? Or even sell them in Amazon from the get go?
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/2...
Like any novelty item you would expect something that was released almost a year ago to have little willing customers left by now. They need to do a product refresh it they want to sell more.
Actually I thought Apple would do fine ever since they bought NeXT and announced they were going to replace MacOS with a NeXT derived operating system. Apple was selling the Mac equivalent of Windows 3.1 with a beautified UI in 1996. It took them until 1999 to get MacOS X in working condition (develop the Blue Box and Carbon, etc). Around that time I was using Windows 2000. The first iPod never exactly took off because, like you said, it's not like it was the only MP3 player in the market, and it used a Firewire port which most PCs back then didn't have. I don't think there was an iTunes for Windows even. It was something for Apple users basically. Only with iTunes for Windows and the USB versions did it ever reach mass market appeal.
In hindsight I probably should have bought their stock back then but again I was never a fan of playing in the stock market.
Yes, I've heard microdosing is popular in California right now. So you might not be far away from the truth.
I thought ChromeOS sold pretty well to students.