US Politics Mega-thread - Page 431

On July 09 2018 17:05 mahrgell wrote:


Well... When you consider that USN test pilots describe the F-35C as "substantially inferior to the F-15E" in air combat (F-15 started serving in '74), I'm not so convinced about this "it ain't outdated, because it has great IT" argument.
It is also unusable as interceptor due to it's limited after burner...

So we can't fight fighters, we can't reach bombers. What are we fighting? Ground targets? Pretty sure there are cheaper and more effective platforms for that.

And let's better not talk about this great stealth gimmick? If you drop all your weapons, the enemy can't recognize you! Whoa, did they learn this from urban guerrilla warfare?

On July 09 2018 18:53 GreenHorizons wrote:


Forgetting for the moment that it's supposed to be better at all of those things and progressively got worse until the only thing it was supposed to be better at was it's long range air to air combat. Problem there is that the stealth doesn't work if you want to use your weapons and when you open the bay the plane loses stability and will turn hard and crash without a skilled pilot managing the planes suck.

Tack onto that the suxor range and that the stealth paint cost millions each application and has to be reapplied every flight to maintain integrity. Oh and will flake off midflight in the rain.

Almost forgot that the heads up display is on a shitty VR helmet, so if the shitty software crashes, or a hard drive fails the pilot is effective blind and loses all potential advantage in targeting. Oh and the target acquisition software is networked, so when one starts bugging it sends a cascading effect through any connected fighters.

There's more but the thing is a trillion dollars of wasted money (and that's what's on the books).

On July 09 2018 19:31 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:

There is plenty of positive pilot stories as well. It's not the leanest fastest interceptor alive but it has some good qualities too.

And for beyond visual range engagements that 'great IT' is key. You can't just shoot missiles at blips on the radar unless you know what the blip means. Knowing what it means faster than an enemy while also appearing later on his radar is undeniably a huge advantage. Knowing things in general means more effective decision making. It's not a minor thing.


This is just bashing...without a skilled pilot any fighter sucks and any current jet will have huge problems too if it's control software fails.

I really don't want to be a F35 defender since I have huge issues with the program but there's no need for flaming the plane itself this hard.

On July 09 2018 19:43 GreenHorizons wrote:


When you spend a trillion dollars on something so useless there really is a reason.

We're not just talking about it being tricky, we're talking about the plane having a potentially catastrophic aerodynamic failure when it tries to use it's weapons.

Its not really that unexpected, this happens with all top militaries in the world. When the Germans and British were messing around with optical rangefinders and focusing on battleships, the US were messing around with radar and carriers.

On July 09 2018 01:45 Simberto wrote:
Indeed. What people need to realize is that a strike hurts both sides. The workers don't make money because they don't get paid, and the owners make no money because the factory doesn't work. Both sides can only do this for a limited amount of time, and both sides don't actually want to do it either. A strike is the only pressure the employees have in negotiations, but they can only employ it if they topic at hand is important enough for them. You are not going to be able to keep up a strike for a totally ridiculous reason for a long period of time, because they workers won't be happy to not be able to work and get paid for nonsense. On the other hand, if the reason for the strike is really important to the workers, they can possibly keep a strike up for longer than the owners are willing to tolerate it.

Unions and the ability to strike are incredibly important for workers rights, and honestly, the US could use a lot more of them.

On July 09 2018 19:43 GreenHorizons wrote:


When you spend a trillion dollars on something so useless there really is a reason.

We're not just talking about it being tricky, we're talking about the plane having a potentially catastrophic aerodynamic failure when it tries to use it's weapons.

On July 09 2018 22:35 Plansix wrote:
Looks like the Trump administration is continuing its efforts to undermine the ACA by cutting off payments.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/08/627042776/trump-administration-freezes-payments-required-by-the-affordable-care-act

This move only screws over small business owners, contractors and sick people who can’t get insurance anyplace else but the exchange. And it screws over the health insurance providers who agreed to be part of the exchanges, only to have the rules changed part way through the game.

And the justification behind doing it is complete BS, since there are conflicting court rulings out of two different states.

Overall, problems with the F-35’s sensors, computers and software, including creating false targets and reporting inaccurate locations, have been severe enough that test teams at Edwards Air Force Base have rated them “red,” meaning they are unable to perform the combat tasks expected of them.

One system, the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), was singled out by pilots as inferior in resolution and range to the systems currently being used on legacy aircraft. EOTS is one of the systems designed to help the F-35 detect and destroy enemy fighters from far enough away to make dogfighting a thing of the past. Mounted close to the nose of the aircraft, it incorporates a television camera, an infrared search and track system, and a laser rangefinder and designator.

These sensors swivel under computer control to track targets over a wide field of regard and display imagery on the pilot’s helmet visor display.

But the limitations of EOTS, including image degradation with humidity, force pilots to fly in closer to a target than they had to when using earlier systems just to get a clear enough picture to launch a missile or take a shot.

The report says the problem is bad enough that F-35 pilots may need to fly in so close to acquire the target that they would have to maneuver away to gain the distance needed for a guided weapon shot. Thus, the system’s limitations can force an attacking F-35 to compromise surprise, allowing the enemy to maneuver to a first-shot opportunity.

But this system, too, is creating erroneous or split images of targets. Compounding the problem, the system is also sometimes dropping images of targets altogether, causing confusion inside the cockpits about what’s there or not there.
All of this means that the systems meant to give the pilots a better understanding of the world around them can do exactly the opposite. According to the report, these systems “continue to degrade battlespace awareness and increase pilot workload. Workarounds to these deficiencies are time-consuming for the pilot and detract from efficient and effective mission execution.”

On July 09 2018 20:32 gobbledydook wrote:


On the other hand, you don't want to end up like France, where railway workers strike whenever they please, at the hint of any reform no matter how necessary it is for the country to stay solvent.

On July 09 2018 22:53 JimmiC wrote:


What I would want to do is not bring low paying unsafe jobs back but make all jobs safe and decent paying. This would of course raise the cost of good considerably, which I don't think is a bad thing in industries like textiles. Like why do people need different clothes for different seasons? It makes no sense. The Oil industry takes so much flack (and it should) but why clothing companies don't is beyond me. They are the worst for child and unsafe labour. They are horrible for the environment (consider the dyes, and the amount of garbage being made by making "style" shifts to out date things. Our landfills are full of clothes. And these guys are making margins that would making the oil companies blush!

I'm not sure why people don't hate on them the same way. I'm guessing it is because we are so celebrity focus and celebs don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.

On July 10 2018 01:53 JimmiC wrote:

Pretty sure I said not to go back to that, but if I didn't let me clear. I don't think we should go back to that. But what we have in the west is crazy right now.

The washing thing brings up some interesting points about environmentalism in general, that at my work we often talk about. Like Glass recycling is it worth it? When you consider the shipping, cleaning, energy it takes to recycle and glass is inert so as far as items in a landfill go it is not bad. It really comes down to the logistics and amounts. It is interesting when you take a real logical look at things "recycling" is not always the best even though you think it should be.

However reducing almost always has a environmental benefit.

So in my long winded answer, I do think the overall befits of paying livable wages, globally to textile workers would be good. I do think that people would have less clothes, but not 2-4 outfits, I also think that even though out west we would have less the people making the clothes could now afford to purchase some. It would also help environmentally because we wouldn't have to ship things so far to find the cheap labour.

Edit: to answer your edit, your running down the slippery slope fast. It's a far stretch from "we have way more then we need" too "I have to wear my office clothing to do yard work"