Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Vindictus

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 74  Next >
Technology & Information / Re: The Windows 10 thread
« on: August 01, 2015, 07:53:38 AM »
I always wonder why people bother with Windows when I hear the number of complaints about every new version.

It's like getting home with a new Toyota and opening up the hood, only to find half the engine parts are stuck together with silly putty, the battery sometimes outputs current the wrong way around and one of the windscreen wipers doesn't work. The first thing you do is go to your computer and post angrily on the Internet about how terrible your new car is. Three years later, you need another car, and you go back to the exact same dealership and buy another one.


Because software tends to improve the longer it's been out and the more it's been debugged. Windows usually ends up relatively stable after patches. This is something people are accustomed to, so they keep downloading Windows knowing it will eventually have the bugs worked out. You can't hotfix or patch a car with broken physical parts, so that's a really bad analogy.

You can, it just typically involves a recall. Happens all the time.

Technology & Information / Re: The Windows 10 thread
« on: July 31, 2015, 11:26:48 PM »
Have windows 10. Edge seems ok but some extensions would be nice .... like an adblocker.

I'm sure I'll get used to the changes.

Having trouble autohiding my task bar and I did get a lost .dll warning, but hopefully I don't need that .dll anymore. :-/

>using edge

Technology & Information / Re: The Windows 10 thread
« on: July 31, 2015, 08:49:27 PM »
Still waiting to get my invitation.
I believe you don't need one. You can just upgrade with the Media Creation Tool:
Unless they fixed that already, but I don't think they did.

Also, I installed Windows 10 the other day. So far I'm quite happy with it. They seem to have put a fair amount of effort into optimising the system and fixing some of the UX flaws of 8/8.1. Overall, a fairly competent upgrade, but don't expect it to blow you away.

Yep, I ended up doing that. Kept getting that infamous message so I created an install USB with it and upgraded that way.

I agree with your short review. A bit easier to get to most tools and sort through settings, but there's some problems. Forcing a login screen on me was annoying, as it was with 8.1. /g/ was also pretty unhappy about some.. Interesting choices Microsoft made, but that's /g/.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Witcher Series
« on: July 29, 2015, 09:34:02 PM »
Final free DLC is a new game difficulty setting after you finish. Keep your character, gear, exp and get tougher monsters. This was one thing I really wanted, and I'm so happy CD Projekt Red had it planned.

Technology & Information / Re: The Windows 10 thread
« on: July 29, 2015, 09:31:17 PM »
Still waiting to get my invitation.

And yeah, I only care because it's free. Still running W7 on my desktop.

Technology & Information / The Windows 10 thread
« on: July 29, 2015, 09:48:09 AM »
Because we don't have one of these and it's coming out today. Post horror stories and/or praise.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Living in Norway
« on: July 28, 2015, 09:14:10 PM »
It's uncommon for people to talk to you in Australia as well. I haven't spent a lot of time in the US, but people didn't approach me there either. I don't see how it's a special thing among the Scandinavian countries.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Living in Norway
« on: July 25, 2015, 04:18:33 AM »
Go and declare asylum.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Invest in the Military
« on: July 20, 2015, 10:28:20 PM »
Adding to that, other countries are developing stealth technology. Both Russia and China have stealth jets being tested right now, although their stealth aspects are questionable (and it is their first attempt at doing so). China in particular just stole the plans for the F-35 a while back, copied the design and chucked two shitty Russian engines into it. Russia's attempt, the PAK-FA or T-50, has its share of problems with only 12 currently on order (cut down from 150 to 70 to 12, or something like that). It will almost certainly have a lower RCS than the Su-35, but it's doubtful it will match the 0.001m2 of the F-35 and 0.0001m2 of the F-22 on account of certain design choices and Russia's comparatively inferior materials science research.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Invest in the Military
« on: July 20, 2015, 10:11:57 PM »
Modern radar and missiles means most engagements will typically happen at range.
Do you honestly think that the US is the only country working on stealth technology or that other countries aren't working on countermeasures to stealth technology?

No, of course not. But that doesn't mean you can invalidate stealth technology. This kind of view is indicative of an extremely simplistic understanding of stealth. It isn't some fabulous new technology for which a magic bullet will be invented; it's the result of a combination of advances in materials science and computing which allows simulation of radar behaviour with specific body shapes.

Radar operates in a series of frequencies that have been defined as bands. Different types of radar systems use different bands, as each band offers its own advantages and disadvantages. Stealth technology is already and has always been useless against specific bands, such as OTH low frequency systems that are used for early warning. They're able to tell you there's aircraft in the air, but not much else due to the clutter and low resolution they suffer from. This means they're never used in a firing solution.

The radar systems that guide missiles typically operate in the bands that the F-22, F-35 and B-2 are optimized against. Now, this doesn't mean they're invisible to these systems, it just means they have to get extremely close before they can be adequately detected. I've no doubt competitors will come up with something to negate this huge advantage, but I highly doubt it will invalidate the technology. And if it does, I fully expect the US to innovate better coatings.

Right now, to my knowledge, Russia does have a low frequency missile for the S-400 system. However, they're low in number and likely in range too, which means an F-35 with a HARM will be able to outrange the S-400 and still get first shot.

There's a lot of easily digestible (and sometimes informed) media out there that regularly runs lazy slander pieces against it. Like I said, the program isn't above reproach, but the aircraft itself is coming together quite well. The most annoying part of it all is that people instantly assume the US has no idea how to design a fighter jet.

UCAV's are the future of aerial warfare, but there's too many problems right now to go all out and replace fighters with them. For the moment, the pilot will remain an integral part of the battlespace, and likely will even when UCAV's do most of the fighting. I wouldn't be surprised to find the F-35/F-22 directing or launching UCAV's in the mid 21st Century.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: July 19, 2015, 08:36:16 AM »
Yeah, it has a few problems. The movie feels very short, some sequences take place really fast. One second a character will be doing something somewhere, next second they'll be somewhere else doing something and it feels like you missed 2 minutes. And yeah, some exposition was heavy at the start.

What I really appreciated, and that Saddam mentioned, is that they really ingeniously got around the typical excessive destruction by minimising it, while simultaneously drawing humour from it too. The villain is slightly better than most marvel villains, and the humour is solid.

Also enjoyed agent carter rocking up.

I'll also add that it's far too late to cancel the program. Not because they're too deep, as the US Military has had no problems in the past dropping millions on new stuff only to cancel it. But because the F-35 is proceeding as planned; costs are dropping, capability is improving, and software issues are slowly being ironed out. The F-35B is completing its final trials before entering service with the USMC later this year.

Starting a new thread for this if anyone wants to argue it, ask questions, or just get a half decent source on the topic (since they seem quite rare). Feel free to merge responses from Rushy's military spending thread into this one.

something something flying turkey
Yeah, I left that one when you finished your post with

the F-35 is already pretty cheap.

because this is the most over budget military project in history. It is a huge embarrassment to the Whitehouse and they have considered canning it and desperately want to, but are now in too deep. The unit cost was supposed to be under $100m. Cheaper than the $150m unit cost of the f22 which was decided was too expensive. And now the F35 has a unit cost of $223m and its still going up.

I provided many links to articles saying how this $trillion aircraft is an absolute disaster in terms of runaway costs ... and you come back with "its pretty cheap" with no evidence of that at all. So you aren't reading the source material I present, you aren't making a reasoned argument and you obviously don't know anything about this project. You are just saying the opposite of whatever I say. That makes for a dull thread ... so I left it.

I can't substantiate whether it's the most overbudget in history, as that would require weeding through a shit load of sources over the last 50 years (some of which would be extremely hard to get ahold of) and then comparing them all. Adjusted for inflation, I'm willing to bet the claim is wrong, but as I said I can't substantiate it. Another thing to remember is that every major military program goes over costs. It's extremely typical for the development companies to make promises they can't keep, especially when it comes to costs. This doesn't excuse the behaviour, and LM are very much guilty of it, but we're probably better equipped now to critique and repudiate this behaviour than ever before.

That said, the F-35 isn't expensive relative to current fighters (especially when you bring capability into the picture, but I won't get into that just yet). Your article is a few years old, and the data indicative of old LRIP figures. The F-35A currently costs $94.8 million without an engine as of LRIP 8, with a full rate production cost of $85 million in 2019. A quick comparison of this to other fighters (including the RAF's Typhoon, which is much more expensive):

Note also that some of these fighters require additions like sniper pods, CFT's and EFT's to be capable, things the F-35 has built in or doesn't have to worry about.

Now, that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate criticisms of the JSF program and its mismanagement. But it should be remembered that it was and is an extremely ambitious program, easily the most of any fighter to date. People love bandying about the $1 trillion figure, but don't understand the figure itself. It's a cost representing the entire life of the aircraft, from development costs to production costs to sustainment costs all the way through to 2050. No other fighter has been costed in such a way before, which is why the number is so large. Additionally, there have been claims that maintaining legacy platforms will cost nearly 3x the amount (so $3-4 trillion) relative to the F-35, owing to the age and diversity of airframes and parts, in addition to fleet size.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Invest in the Military
« on: July 14, 2015, 10:20:41 PM »
This isn't WWII and we aren't fighting Hitler. Dogfights aren't even real anymore.
Tell that to Korea, Viet Nam and Gulf War fighter pilots.

Do you know how long ago Korea and Vietnam were? And there were like 1 or 2 engagements in the Gulf War that could be called 'dogfights'.

Modern radar and missiles means most engagements will typically happen at range. Even if the pilots do somehow manage to get within visual range, technology like HOBS missiles combined with HMCS allow missile shots at large angles, meaning you no longer have to maneuver to get a gun kill so long as you have an AIM-9x. The F-35 takes this a bit further with the ability to fire at anything within a 360 degree sphere around the aircraft.

But ignoring all of that, going into the merge is near suicidal in a realistic context as it almost always ends with you or your enemy being shot down by someone not in the fight. You lose all of your energy maneuvering, and significantly reduce your awareness through focusing on one enemy. Pilots still train with dogfights because they demand a large amount of skill and endurance, not necessarily because they're still relevant.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Invest in the Military
« on: July 14, 2015, 02:16:32 AM »
The F-35 is estimated to cost a trillion dollars! A trillion bloody dollars. In the US, about 150 million people work. That's about $7000 dollars each! Everyone in America who pays tax has spent $7000 as an average on that one stupid aircraft.

An aircraft I might add that is totally useless. It is not even as good as an F16! It has lost combat fights to them and is now deemed so bad, it can't do air to air combat.

Imagine if you didn't have to buy that aircraft, what you could do with your $7000 back. for that money, the US could fund Obamacare until 2025! you could fund all the schools in America for 17 years on that! Or every one of you could have a holiday of a lifetime.

Commenting on that recent news event, the F-35 didn't lose to the F-16 in a dogfight, because it wasn't a dogfight. It was a test of the F-35 in ACM, to establish what its current limits are. It was found that the F-35 in question, AF-2 (from memory), was well within its limits and could stand to use some changes in the flight software to allow it to be more maneuverable.

AF-2 also didn't have any of the systems that give it an edge in the merge, such as the EOTS/DAS, HMCS and HOBS missiles, as these weren't what was being tested. As Rushy noted, the F-35 would utterly decimate an F-16 in realistic combat, even if an F-16 somehow got close. It has superior radar, sensors and stealth.

The F35 is a disaster.

It is also not the world's most advanced fighter ... the T50 is going to be better ... and has a far smaller unit price (one fifth) so they can build more for less.

The T-50 is facing it's own fair share of issues, and India (a major funder of the PAK-FA program) has expressed serious concerns over what they're receiving from the Russians.

Russia has never maintained an edge in radar technology relative to the US, and the stealth of the T-50 is questionable given design choices like engine placement, engine blades being open to the front, etc. Russia has also cut down their order of the PAK-FA substantially, with a focus on more Su-35's.

It's highly unlikely that it's 1/5th the cost as well, as the F-35 is already pretty cheap.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Witcher Series
« on: July 13, 2015, 10:07:12 PM »
After comparing both romance endings, it is pretty apparent that Yen makes for the more 'canon' one. Can't really add much more without spoiling, although it is a pretty minor part of the overall ending.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Invest in the Military
« on: July 13, 2015, 10:03:18 PM »
How is that surprising? We're talking about highly advanced stealth fighters. In any case, I know Australia will be able to work on the F-35 without having to ship anything to the US, on account of LM establishing a heavy maintenance capability here. Japan is also getting the same treatment. I don't know what the Euro purchasers have to do, although I doubt it involves returning the aircraft to the US.

I know for a fact that the RAAF aren't exactly dissimilar in regards to contracting. From memory, they rely strongly on civilian contractors, with only the most important crew members being a part of the RAAF itself. So I doubt this approach is anything new for them.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Invest in the Military
« on: July 13, 2015, 02:21:32 AM »
Contractors now make up the majority of more than a few military installations. Essentially meaning, these facilities are now being maintained by people who aren't federal employees, but rather employees of private firms. Private firms which are under considerable pressure to make as much money as humanly possible. This also, leads into the title point. That you can now, essentially, invest directly into the military. For example the F35 isn't flown by contractors, but it is built and maintained by them... and still owned by Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin doesn't sell them directly to the government, the government pays for the right to use it (as do all other foreign nations who pay for it). That means if you want to invest in the F35, go ahead and invest in Lockheed Martin. Its the same thing.

tl;dr President Obama is a master troll.

Isn't this how every fighter procurement program has ever worked? I'm also skeptical of how you say the operators of the aircraft don't actually own it.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 74  Next >