|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 11 2016 13:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 13:00 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2016 12:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:42 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2016 12:40 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:27 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2016 12:21 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:12 oneofthem wrote:
developing new tech especially new paradigm (beyond visual range combat) is hard. it is a strategically important system if they can get it off the ground. the planners aren't morons No one thinks otherwise. However, the government provides every incentive for defense companies to severely overcharge. The reason they get away with it is because that spending does create high-quality jobs, so state governments are willing to spend federal money to prop up defense jobs in their own states. it seems like a big developmental process problem, not necessarily nefarious. It's not exactly nefarious or corrupt, but it is highly inefficient. It is generally true that if you give an organization more money then you will get more result. The money is heading in the direction of the defense companies so they spend it (and pay employees and executives a good portion of it, to be fair). Defense companies do a good thing very inefficiently and they are a pretty good example of pork barrel spending since state legislators tend to get projects funded for those contractors. On March 11 2016 12:28 Slaughter wrote:On March 11 2016 12:10 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 11 2016 12:06 LegalLord wrote:
American military technology is mind-bogglingly cost-inefficient. The F-35 is a plane with a ridiculous price tag, and the F-22 cost $340m a pop (total program cost divided by number of planes produced). Compare that to the $35m cost of modern Su, Mig, or Eurofighter planes which cost around $30 million a pop. Guess what? The F-22 is great but it simply isn't so good that it would beat 5-10 of those other planes in battle (or in effectiveness in completing missions). It is only moderately better than the others but extremely more expensive.
Other programs are similarly wasteful with some ridiculous perverse incentives that lead defense contractors to charge ridiculous amounts for their military technology. I agree, the US military is inefficient, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be expanded. The US keeps buying planes instead of focusing on other technology that might be needed in dirty ground battle. All of the US technology is pretty inefficient, it's just planes that get the most attention. The US needs to stop buying stupidly expensive technology that is worth 10% of what it actually costs. Cut out the incentives that make it that way and it will allow huge cost savings, and even will allow the military to be expanded in the right ways if it needs to be done. Its inefficient because the tech level is so high. Its diminishing returns and we have long past the point where increases in technology can be done in a cost efficient manner, There are finite resources and given how little gain there is for programs like the F-22 and F-35 especially, they aren't the best use of all that money. As I previously mentions, these planes are pretty much worse in all real applications than 5-10 modern planes from other nations with advanced plane tech (and the cost, including pilot training, runs up to about the same for both). Spend the money where it would actually make a difference. The $67 billion that the F-22 program cost, or the $1 trillion of the F-35, could do a lot more if you put it into more effective applications. you can't evaluate the effectiveness of a new generation of aircraft by using simple scenarios. the doctrine of a BVR fighter is completely different and it's designed to project force effectively, i.e. do damage while not suffering loss. this is really the only way the u.s. has a geopolitically effective force projection. the aircraft carriers are huge sitting ducks to cheap storm of missiles. it's still worthwhile despite being less efficient than a f35 in terms of what can take it out. it's not about winning some prolonged conflict. Indeed, it really isn't about prolonged conflict - that makes it quite useless for conventional combat against strong opponents with advanced technology - the most advanced AA technology cheaply and effectively counters even the best US technology when combined with effective tactics. You can even make it moot if you realize how easy it is to bomb supply lines that sustain those aircraft. So these projects are primarily used for asymmetric warfare. Given how expensive it is, and how much easier this problem is to solve through simpler tactical means (intelligence, more aggressive attacks that accept some casualties and collateral). The idea of the BVR doctrine has always had a pretty large element of magical thinking associated with it. The fact that you mention that "you cannot evaluate its effectiveness by normal means" is a pretty good indicator of that. don't think they'll use this thing vs hardened ground targets before throwing some missiles at stationary aa. it's BVR vs other aircrafts. Against other aircraft: sure, it's pretty good - if you have something around even numbers. If you're outnumbered 5 to 1 (which is, cost-wise, very feasible) then real combat conditions are very unlikely to make BVR particularly useful unless you already have the overwhelming advantage. If you fight nations that have the means to cut off supply lines or deploy advanced radar and AA, you will also have trouble. Besides the obvious issue of who has the most advanced tech (and the best AA counters the best aircraft easily), anti-aircraft is very strongly based on tactics. The nations bombed by Israel and the US in the MidEast where the bombings happen to proceed without a hitch and casualties are minimal are the result of really weak AA operators. Having AA systems with extremely long range (e.g. S-400) or that are mobile, makes it much harder to target them. If all of the AA systems move to a different position after they fire, it makes it a lot more difficult to proceed without casualties. Operator skill often matters a fair bit more than technology in AA. Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:52 Soap wrote:On March 11 2016 12:40 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:28 Slaughter wrote:On March 11 2016 12:10 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 11 2016 12:06 LegalLord wrote:
American military technology is mind-bogglingly cost-inefficient. The F-35 is a plane with a ridiculous price tag, and the F-22 cost $340m a pop (total program cost divided by number of planes produced). Compare that to the $35m cost of modern Su, Mig, or Eurofighter planes which cost around $30 million a pop. Guess what? The F-22 is great but it simply isn't so good that it would beat 5-10 of those other planes in battle (or in effectiveness in completing missions). It is only moderately better than the others but extremely more expensive.
Other programs are similarly wasteful with some ridiculous perverse incentives that lead defense contractors to charge ridiculous amounts for their military technology. I agree, the US military is inefficient, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be expanded. The US keeps buying planes instead of focusing on other technology that might be needed in dirty ground battle. All of the US technology is pretty inefficient, it's just planes that get the most attention. The US needs to stop buying stupidly expensive technology that is worth 10% of what it actually costs. Cut out the incentives that make it that way and it will allow huge cost savings, and even will allow the military to be expanded in the right ways if it needs to be done. Its inefficient because the tech level is so high. Its diminishing returns and we have long past the point where increases in technology can be done in a cost efficient manner, There are finite resources and given how little gain there is for programs like the F-22 and F-35 especially, they aren't the best use of all that money. As I previously mentioned, these planes are pretty much worse in all real applications than 5-10 modern planes from other nations with advanced plane tech (and the cost, including pilot training, runs up to about the same for both). Spend the money where it would actually make a difference. The $67 billion that the F-22 program cost, or the $1 trillion of the F-35, could do a lot more if you put it into more effective applications. Any suggestions? By the way no modern fighter is even close to costing $35m. We're paying $4.7b for 36 Gripens, Egypt $5.6b for 24 Rafales (plus a frigate and missiles), India was offered $13.2b for 36 Rafales. The russians claim Su-35 is $65m, but nobody is rushing to buy it. I'd focus on basic science, medicine, and space tech. Pretty directly applicable to military applications but also more useful for civilians and more cost-efficient overall. Very modern aircraft are certainly more than $35m and the prices have increased a lot recently. It's better to look at production prices rather than sale prices though, and also to see how many planes a program produces (aircraft are a lot cheaper to scale, obviously, a huge reason for those sales in the first place). Eurofighters cost about $100m, a slightly older version is about $50m. Su-35 is $40-65m a pop depending on the model. Rafales are around $80m. MiG-29s, a slightly older plane, run about $29m a pop. Really, they're best evaluated not by their flyway cost, but by the program cost divided by the number produced. That puts F-22s at $340m, Rafale at $320m, Eurofighters at $150m, Su-35 at some unknown price (probably cheaper if the government would sell them for $65m), and Mig-29 at not that much more than $29m (because there were thousands of them produced). F-35 planes run into the billions at current production rates, but I'm certain that it will drop down to $500-600m a pop in the future. So prices aren't quite $35m each for the very newest planes, but the US programs are a bit on the expensive side, and the kinds of planes that would generally appear in combat in asymmetric warfare (Migs are hugely popular among nations with less money) are definitely in that range.
Some of the cost increases are really a product of the reduction in order numbers. As orders are cancelled (even from within the US armed forces), the "cost" per aircraft goes up and the R&D cost is spread across fewer planes.
Air superiority has a pretty huge return in terms of real world power.
|
Not to mention the F-35 was suppose to be 3 different planes. The hover package a conventional package and an carrier package.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if we are just fighting terrorists then an old platform like the gunships would do but the r&d is clearly focused on great power competition.
|
Apple said federal prosecutors are “offensive”, “desperate” and “intended to smear” them in a remarkable escalation of the digital privacy fight between America’s most valuable company and the FBI.
The remarks from Apple’s top lawyer, general counsel Bruce Sewell, were made in a conference call with reporters just hours after the Justice Department submitted a legal brief that accused the technology company of trying to usurp power from the government.
In sometimes caustic language, the government had claimed Apple had declared itself “the primary guardian of Americans’ privacy”.
Sewell responded: “In 30 years of practice, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a legal brief that was more intended to smear the other side. I can only conclude that the Department of Justice is so desperate at this point that they’ve thrown decorum to the winds.”
Investigators want a federal judge in California to order Apple to weaken the security defenses of an iPhone used by San Bernardino gunman Syed Farook. The government would then be able to break into the phone.
The breakdown in relations is more than just headline-grabbing dramatics. It means that Silicon Valley and Washington are now less likely than ever to come to a middle ground in their two-year debate over encryption and law enforcement in the smartphone age. The only foreseeable solution would come from a broad court ruling or new legislation, which could miss many of the subtleties of the debate.
The day’s developments were a shift from recent efforts by Apple executives and FBI director James Comey to mend fences and restart good relations. During his testimony in front of Congress on 1 March, Comey said about the tech company: “I don’t question their motives.”
That seemed like a distant memory on Thursday.
In its 35-page filing, the government cited news reports and other sources in suggesting that Apple was being hypocritical in refusing to help the US any more in the San Bernardino case while cooperating with the Chinese government. Apple, for instance, stores data for Chinese users in Chinese data centers, and its Chinese devices can work with Beijing-exclusive Wi-Fi and mobile broadband standards. Some US officials have long assumed those standards facilitate Chinese state surveillance.
Source
|
On March 11 2016 13:26 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 13:24 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 13:00 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2016 12:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:42 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2016 12:40 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:27 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2016 12:21 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:12 oneofthem wrote:
developing new tech especially new paradigm (beyond visual range combat) is hard. it is a strategically important system if they can get it off the ground. the planners aren't morons No one thinks otherwise. However, the government provides every incentive for defense companies to severely overcharge. The reason they get away with it is because that spending does create high-quality jobs, so state governments are willing to spend federal money to prop up defense jobs in their own states. it seems like a big developmental process problem, not necessarily nefarious. It's not exactly nefarious or corrupt, but it is highly inefficient. It is generally true that if you give an organization more money then you will get more result. The money is heading in the direction of the defense companies so they spend it (and pay employees and executives a good portion of it, to be fair). Defense companies do a good thing very inefficiently and they are a pretty good example of pork barrel spending since state legislators tend to get projects funded for those contractors. On March 11 2016 12:28 Slaughter wrote:On March 11 2016 12:10 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 11 2016 12:06 LegalLord wrote:
American military technology is mind-bogglingly cost-inefficient. The F-35 is a plane with a ridiculous price tag, and the F-22 cost $340m a pop (total program cost divided by number of planes produced). Compare that to the $35m cost of modern Su, Mig, or Eurofighter planes which cost around $30 million a pop. Guess what? The F-22 is great but it simply isn't so good that it would beat 5-10 of those other planes in battle (or in effectiveness in completing missions). It is only moderately better than the others but extremely more expensive.
Other programs are similarly wasteful with some ridiculous perverse incentives that lead defense contractors to charge ridiculous amounts for their military technology. I agree, the US military is inefficient, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be expanded. The US keeps buying planes instead of focusing on other technology that might be needed in dirty ground battle. All of the US technology is pretty inefficient, it's just planes that get the most attention. The US needs to stop buying stupidly expensive technology that is worth 10% of what it actually costs. Cut out the incentives that make it that way and it will allow huge cost savings, and even will allow the military to be expanded in the right ways if it needs to be done. Its inefficient because the tech level is so high. Its diminishing returns and we have long past the point where increases in technology can be done in a cost efficient manner, There are finite resources and given how little gain there is for programs like the F-22 and F-35 especially, they aren't the best use of all that money. As I previously mentions, these planes are pretty much worse in all real applications than 5-10 modern planes from other nations with advanced plane tech (and the cost, including pilot training, runs up to about the same for both). Spend the money where it would actually make a difference. The $67 billion that the F-22 program cost, or the $1 trillion of the F-35, could do a lot more if you put it into more effective applications. you can't evaluate the effectiveness of a new generation of aircraft by using simple scenarios. the doctrine of a BVR fighter is completely different and it's designed to project force effectively, i.e. do damage while not suffering loss. this is really the only way the u.s. has a geopolitically effective force projection. the aircraft carriers are huge sitting ducks to cheap storm of missiles. it's still worthwhile despite being less efficient than a f35 in terms of what can take it out. it's not about winning some prolonged conflict. Indeed, it really isn't about prolonged conflict - that makes it quite useless for conventional combat against strong opponents with advanced technology - the most advanced AA technology cheaply and effectively counters even the best US technology when combined with effective tactics. You can even make it moot if you realize how easy it is to bomb supply lines that sustain those aircraft. So these projects are primarily used for asymmetric warfare. Given how expensive it is, and how much easier this problem is to solve through simpler tactical means (intelligence, more aggressive attacks that accept some casualties and collateral). The idea of the BVR doctrine has always had a pretty large element of magical thinking associated with it. The fact that you mention that "you cannot evaluate its effectiveness by normal means" is a pretty good indicator of that. don't think they'll use this thing vs hardened ground targets before throwing some missiles at stationary aa. it's BVR vs other aircrafts. Against other aircraft: sure, it's pretty good - if you have something around even numbers. If you're outnumbered 5 to 1 (which is, cost-wise, very feasible) then real combat conditions are very unlikely to make BVR particularly useful unless you already have the overwhelming advantage. If you fight nations that have the means to cut off supply lines or deploy advanced radar and AA, you will also have trouble. Besides the obvious issue of who has the most advanced tech (and the best AA counters the best aircraft easily), anti-aircraft is very strongly based on tactics. The nations bombed by Israel and the US in the MidEast where the bombings happen to proceed without a hitch and casualties are minimal are the result of really weak AA operators. Having AA systems with extremely long range (e.g. S-400) or that are mobile, makes it much harder to target them. If all of the AA systems move to a different position after they fire, it makes it a lot more difficult to proceed without casualties. Operator skill often matters a fair bit more than technology in AA. On March 11 2016 12:52 Soap wrote:On March 11 2016 12:40 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:28 Slaughter wrote:On March 11 2016 12:10 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 11 2016 12:06 LegalLord wrote:
American military technology is mind-bogglingly cost-inefficient. The F-35 is a plane with a ridiculous price tag, and the F-22 cost $340m a pop (total program cost divided by number of planes produced). Compare that to the $35m cost of modern Su, Mig, or Eurofighter planes which cost around $30 million a pop. Guess what? The F-22 is great but it simply isn't so good that it would beat 5-10 of those other planes in battle (or in effectiveness in completing missions). It is only moderately better than the others but extremely more expensive.
Other programs are similarly wasteful with some ridiculous perverse incentives that lead defense contractors to charge ridiculous amounts for their military technology. I agree, the US military is inefficient, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be expanded. The US keeps buying planes instead of focusing on other technology that might be needed in dirty ground battle. All of the US technology is pretty inefficient, it's just planes that get the most attention. The US needs to stop buying stupidly expensive technology that is worth 10% of what it actually costs. Cut out the incentives that make it that way and it will allow huge cost savings, and even will allow the military to be expanded in the right ways if it needs to be done. Its inefficient because the tech level is so high. Its diminishing returns and we have long past the point where increases in technology can be done in a cost efficient manner, There are finite resources and given how little gain there is for programs like the F-22 and F-35 especially, they aren't the best use of all that money. As I previously mentioned, these planes are pretty much worse in all real applications than 5-10 modern planes from other nations with advanced plane tech (and the cost, including pilot training, runs up to about the same for both). Spend the money where it would actually make a difference. The $67 billion that the F-22 program cost, or the $1 trillion of the F-35, could do a lot more if you put it into more effective applications. Any suggestions? By the way no modern fighter is even close to costing $35m. We're paying $4.7b for 36 Gripens, Egypt $5.6b for 24 Rafales (plus a frigate and missiles), India was offered $13.2b for 36 Rafales. The russians claim Su-35 is $65m, but nobody is rushing to buy it. I'd focus on basic science, medicine, and space tech. Pretty directly applicable to military applications but also more useful for civilians and more cost-efficient overall. Very modern aircraft are certainly more than $35m and the prices have increased a lot recently. It's better to look at production prices rather than sale prices though, and also to see how many planes a program produces (aircraft are a lot cheaper to scale, obviously, a huge reason for those sales in the first place). Eurofighters cost about $100m, a slightly older version is about $50m. Su-35 is $40-65m a pop depending on the model. Rafales are around $80m. MiG-29s, a slightly older plane, run about $29m a pop. Really, they're best evaluated not by their flyway cost, but by the program cost divided by the number produced. That puts F-22s at $340m, Rafale at $320m, Eurofighters at $150m, Su-35 at some unknown price (probably cheaper if the government would sell them for $65m), and Mig-29 at not that much more than $29m (because there were thousands of them produced). F-35 planes run into the billions at current production rates, but I'm certain that it will drop down to $500-600m a pop in the future. So prices aren't quite $35m each for the very newest planes, but the US programs are a bit on the expensive side, and the kinds of planes that would generally appear in combat in asymmetric warfare (Migs are hugely popular among nations with less money) are definitely in that range. Some of the cost increases are really a product of the reduction in order numbers. As orders are cancelled (even from within the US armed forces), the "cost" per aircraft goes up and the R&D cost is spread across fewer planes. Air superiority has a pretty huge return in terms of real world power.
Indeed - failing to reach an economy of scale is pretty expensive. I tend to think that orders are cancelled for a reason, in that maybe the planes just weren't worth purchasing and all that R&D ended up being used inefficiently. Air superiority is valuable, but also not worth an infinite sum of money.
On March 11 2016 13:42 oneofthem wrote:
if we are just fighting terrorists then an old platform like the gunships would do but the r&d is clearly focused on great power competition.
In showing off how good the US is at asymmetrical warfare or in actual combat against world powers?
The former is a stupid power play and the latter is not feasible due to the effectiveness of modern AA/radar and how vulnerable planes are to bombers and artillery when they are on the ground.
|
On March 11 2016 13:42 oneofthem wrote:
if we are just fighting terrorists then an old platform like the gunships would do but the r&d is clearly focused on great power competition.
While I'm not quite as cynical as some, people tend forget the r&d also results in discoveries and advancements in technology similar to what the NASA budgets do.
|
On March 11 2016 14:37 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 13:42 oneofthem wrote:
if we are just fighting terrorists then an old platform like the gunships would do but the r&d is clearly focused on great power competition. While I'm not quite as cynical as some, people tend forget the r&d also results in discoveries and advancements in technology similar to what the NASA budgets do.
A lot of the time, the military makes some impressive discoveries because they throw a lot of money into solving problems that end up being applicable to more than just warfare. Almost certainly, if that money were spent on research more directly applicable to civilian use, they would get more results. Not to mention it goes both ways - a lot of civilian R&D has military application.
Military expenditures are obviously important but the fact that some of their R&D can be adapted to civilian use doesn't justify massive spending. There may be better ways to spend that money.
|
Not to mention the tech or discoveries they decide not to disclose while possibly doing next generation type of R&D i.e. DARPA.
|
|
|
|
|
This is literally the most useless graph there is.
The great world recession occurred in 2009... No president was responsible for that. Federal debt as a percentage of GDP is way higher than its been before (maybe WW2, I don't know), and a $400billion dollar deficit is still spending 10%+ more money than you have every year.
The US also spends 10%+ of its budget paying for interest on its debt.
|
|
|
On March 11 2016 08:42 oBlade wrote:
Having a government isn't the only way you become a geopolitical force in the world.
What point are you trying to make about the pope? Christianity doesn't have a pope either, it's no different than Islam. The Catholic pope? The Greek Orthodox pope? The Coptic pope? Are you trying to say a requirement to be a geopolitical force is having a a single leader at the top? Even though France's leader changes every few years? Does this mean when the American Civil War broke out, the Union and Confederacy weren't official entities? Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis both thought they were president of the south... no?
You are right to note that these statements are different:
-France (whatever France is) hates X
-French people (as a group, in general) hate X
-(some) French people hate X
-All French people hate X
but the first is not in any way synonymous with the fourth - if you were trying to convey the meaning of the fourth, you would just say it that way. What most people do when it comes to bigotry is assume someone is guilty of it and then try to twist otherwise plain words to somehow fit that charge.
I never talked about being a geopolitical force or whatever, wtf. My point with the Pope is that if an organization has a de facto clearly-defined leader (be it a single person or a college of people, a "leader" can be an entity itself), you can consider that "Name of the org thinks" means "the official position of that org is", or "the leader(s) of this org think(s)". The fact that it changes is irrelevant, because it logically makes the official position change ; if, for example, a pro-Israel president is in power in France, you can say "France tends to be leaders Israel's side in the Israelo-Palestinian conflict", and when a pro-Palestine president will be elected, it will be the opposite. No problem with that.
And that point about the South is absurd. The South is not a clearly defined entity, as shown by the fact that not all Southern states seceded during the Civil War. However, both CSA and USA were defined entities, with Lincoln's and Davis' governments as leaders.
Thus when Trump says "Islam hates X", he either wants to abuse the ignorance of potential voters who could think that Islam has a clearly defined leader which holds an official position on X (here, hate), or means that the people who have Islam as their faith, in general, hate X, which is stupid.
|
I love the audience cheered as the moderator repeated Trump's threats of violence against protesters that get abused at his events by his supporters.
Moderator wants to frame it as bad that people beat up protesters. But instead, the moderator just repeated Trump's strong points; beating people up because they want to use their first amendment.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lol these people have never went into a rightwing comments section. pretty sure the people there would vote to gas the LIEberals.
|
Tump is gonna crush Clinton in the general elections,it wont even be close.
Sanders is the only change for the democrats but they don't dare to pick him.
Now it will be an outsider,trump,against an establishment candidate,clinton.
The establishment remains blind, they will get punished so badly.
People want change,change that Obama did promise but never delivered.
He played it safe, to scared to mess up. Maybe it was his only option but its a slightly below average president at best while we had such high hopes.
Loving the show,keep it up.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's like how a kid wants to punish his teacher by acting out
|
Typical angry student Bernie supporter:
+ Show Spoiler +
So is it Christie at AG and Carson at HHS?
EDIT: Maybe education too? Maybe the real history of the pyramids?
|
|
|
I like how Obama has thrown the UK and France under the bus for what happened in Libya. I kinda agree with his criticism, not that I think that it was a good idea to air it publicly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/96x3B3o.jpg)
