If that's the selling price to military, probably includes licensing/chips for secure comms, as well as testing & certification to some arbitrary mil spec.

and while it's way cheaper than a Hellfire missile, this thing wouldn't take out a tank, and likely not even armored car. might be enough to penetrate the tank of a fuel truck though...

I was reluctant to believe this was possible because only idiots would let kids keep their mobile phones while they are driving a tank, but apparently some russian units are so badly equipped or their comm equipment is so bad that they use phones for communication. The induced incompetence of a dictatorship is mindboggling.

If you watch this and feel anything but complete terror, you're missing the point. An AI controlled drone swarm is a military nightmare: you can blind radar; shut down comms; interrupt C3 at a crucial moment.

The things that can be done with a thousand cheap drones and some basic AI can render billion-dollar military systems moot in the event of real combat. The US Navy is already shitting themselves over this (there's already been a few incidents, most recently off the coast of San Diego), and the USAF isn't far behind. Serious drones incidents -- from unknown attackers -- have happened in the US. This including an attempted attack on a power station and a bizarre cat-and-mouse game between USBP/HLS and an unidentified "super drone" over Arizona on more than one occasion.

Did you notice what they were displaying? This wasn't meant to be oo-aah cute, this was China telling the US military they fuck around at their own risk. The last time someone sent a message this clearly, Billy Mitchell was flying a biplane over a captured German destroyer.

"Far less chance for severe mishaps, too" -- I know you meant something totally different, but in the case of what I'm talking about, the exact opposite holds true.

"On Feb 20th 2017 Air Navigation Services Czech Republic reported, that the actual communication for the hand off from Bratislava to Prague at 15:53Z had been correct (frequency 132.890MHz transmitted and acknowledged), however, the crew subsequently tuned frequency 132.980MHz, the crew did not monitor the emergency frequency. Prague Center spotted another Jet Airways aircraft, flight 9W-122 from Delhi (India) to London Heathrow, flying under control of Rhein Control (Germany) south of the Czech Republic, via Rhein Control and 9W-122 an ACARS message was transmitted to 9W-118 asking them to contact (Prague Center) frequency 132.065MHz. When 9W-118 reported on that frequency at 16:26Z (loss of communication thus lasted for 33 minutes), the aircraft was already in German Airspace and was instructed to contact Rhein Control. Czech ATC immediately informed their military counterpart (Czech control and reporting center) that contact had been re-established."

https://www.aeroinside.com/item/9114/jet-airways-b773-near-cologne-on-feb-16th-2017-loss-of-communication-leads-to-intercept

The crew swapped some digits on channel handover that lead to a comms blackout of 33 minutes. Euro jets already in the air intercepted the passenger jet over Germany and escorted to England.

Those boys and girls don't mess around.

LOL I can't be a pig and Sarah Palin at the same time. Make up your mind

Those are all valid criticisms, but nobody apart from the flight engineers and test pilots truly know whether this plane is a lemon or not. If it does everything it's supposed to do, then it's exactly what the military asked for, just 10 years too late....

Any suitability and fit for purpose criticism that anyone has ever come up with for the F-35 also applies to just about any piece of military equipment that has been created in the last 70 years. Engineering is a balancing act, and an iterative process. Almost every aircraft, and vehicle in the military today was built to fight a soviet army. Luckily that never happened. But that means that most aircraft and vehicles in the military today have been grossly modified to make them fit for a different purpose. The F-35 will probably go through this as well over the next 30 years, because it's a normal part of the life-cycle of military equipment. Almost every plane dropping bombs now was previously designed as a fighter. But nobody ever calls them out for being mutants like they do with the F-35, they call it additional capability. The F-35 was born with these capabilities instead of being added over time.


Expensive: I'll agree. Could the money have been spent better else where? Definitely. You could argue that the cost is tiny compared to that of a full scale war, maybe F-35 is a good deterrent. Air superiority is the key to winning a war. If you're going to spend money then that's where it should be spent. When the oceans rise enough, is a country like Indonesia going to lash out and try to take land and resources for their civilians? Maybe. I doubt all 200 million of them will just stand there and starve. (Ok I'll concede, this does make me sound a bit like Palin. But hopefully not as dumb )
They could have probably made 3 different stealth planes for 1/2 the cost, but that has it's own strategic downsides. You have to have the right assets in the right places or you have to spread them quite thinly. With a multi-role plane you have all of the capabilities everywhere. Just a matter of a loading it with different weapons.

Not needed: Time will tell whether this is the right plane, but new planes are needed. And they absolutely must have stealth. Within 10 years, weapon systems will be so advanced that if you are spotted, you're as good as dead. We are currently dropping bombs on fairly unsophisticated enemies, but wars tend to escalate quickly. You just never know either way, and it's better to be prepared for the worst. There are plenty of countries with very good planes and pilots that could get sucked into a conflict. If you're really unlucky you could be fighting US made planes with pilots trained in the same way, and you don't want to be fighting a fair fight.
Further still, Russia, China and Japan are developing their own stealth planes, which pretty much forces everyone else to do the same thing.
Especially if Donald Trump gets elected. You never know who that crazy asshole is going to provoke into a war

Doesn't work: It's still in development and testing.

Overtasked: It does the same stuff the aging multi-role planes (that were originally built as fighters) do. With the addition of stealth, and better weapons/sensors/comms. Small performance variables don't win wars, superior tactics and situational awareness does.

Underpowered: Almost every plane ever built has had it's engines upgraded to give it more thrust through it's life. And engines on planes are almost a disposable item, they're constantly being replaced throughout the life-cycle of the plane. Like a formula one car.
The current engine, is already the most powerful engine ever in a jet fighter. It is good enough to fly super sonic without an afterburner, which none of the planes it's replacing are capable of.

Piloted: Agreed. But who knows, maybe a Boston Dynamics robot will be flying it soon

Test Failing: That's only a good thing. You want things to fail during tests, and not in the real world. Testing and finding flaws is a normal part of developing anything.

Fragile: That can be said for all US aircraft. They all need to have the runway checked for FOD, because one little rock can destroy even the best plane. Russian aircraft on the other hand are designed to be rugged though, because they're runways are in terrible condition. But in reality, all sophisticated equipment needs constant maintenance, especially when even a simple failure at 40,000 feet becomes an emergency.

Quickly Obsolete: Time will tell. Perhaps it would have been better to keep upgrading current planes with more technology like plasma stealth gas that make then partially stealthy, better sensors and more computing power. But by the time you've done that you've got a plane that's as heavy as F-35 anyway, and not as capable. Although it might have been cheaper in the long run.

Like I said in my previous comment. All of this doesn't make an interesting story so you'll only ever hear the two extremes which are "the plane sux" vs "it's invicible!!11" depending on your media source.

The F-35 can do everything better than any other plane. It's weapons are better, it's senors are better, and it's communication and situational awareness is much better. Thanks to the stealth, it has better survivability.

The only area it has some disadvantages in performance are the acceleration and maneuverability. Which is a small disadvantage, it still accelerates incredibly fast, just slower than a lighter plane, which is just physics. But it's not a slouch by any means. Plus the maneuverability is still being worked on, it's all fly by wire and they can do some really magic things with those systems once it's all tuned. They haven't started pushing it to the limits yet from what I've heard. (and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole "our plane sucks" thing was another tactic of spreading misinformation).

Here's the other thing. The F-16 can out maneuver and out accelerate the F-35. But every Russian fighter can out accelerate and out maneuver the F-16, anyway. Yet the F-16 always comes out on top. Why is that? Superior sensors, weapons, comms and tactics.

The F-35 is the best plane to achieve air superiority, because not many pilots have a death wish. Air combat is about survival, not about kills. Even in the Gulf war, the Iraqi's didn't want to fly against the F-15s because they knew they'd get just get shot down. They never even took off. So imagine how they would feel against a plane that can't be detected, let alone locked onto. A plane that can lock onto you and fire without you knowing. Not a good feeling knowing that at any moment you could explode without warning.

The A-10 is bullet proof, but not missile proof. It's a sitting duck against shoulder mounted IGLA's. Only the cockpit is bullet proof BTW which is great for the pilot, but not so great for the rest of the plane

I agree that the F-35 for the current war is overkill, but electronics and technology keeps getting cheaper day by day, and in 10 years time, even the current enemies will start buying more sophisticated systems. It's better to be prepared. As being reactionary like in WW2 and Vietnam was quite costly to the lives of allied forces. The F-35 will probably be in service for another 30 years, so it needs to try to meet as many requirements as it can for that time period, until the next plane comes out shooting lasers instead of missiles.

Also close air support these days is already done mostly by soft skin planes like the F-16. So not much difference there. Apart from the expense I guess. It's not low and slow either. You have a plane fly at such speed and high altitude the people on the ground never even know about it.


If you feel like it I'll give you a game of DCS World some time. It's a free flight sim (also used to train US national guard and other nations too). It really demonstrates the value of good sensors and weapons over flight performance

Now when it comes to being a waste of money, only time will tell. I guess either way it's win win though, because if there is no conflict that needs this plane it's only a good thing. And if there is a conflict we have the plane ready. But for the time being it really does seem like it's a waste of money. A lot of money, especially in a time of debt.

His half remembered quote was from Anatole France, from his 1894 book Le Lys Rouge

La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.

er... uh...

TWO

TWO things that cats and Russians have in comm TWO

No, wait.

Their behaviour is largely incomprehensible

THREE! THREE thin...

They're both hairy

FOUR! FO

A lot of them are called "Bear"

F

FFFfff

ff


oh frig it

I'm looking forward to the death mechanics of Star Citizen, personally.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/12879-Death-Of-A-Spaceman

Awesome ship and a steal at only $150!!

This is song about a nasty breakup, where he's been out drinking away the pain.

Formidable = formidable, or great, and is used in the sense of terrific or amazing.
minable = pathetic, wretched (he sings fort minable, very pathetic, to rhyme with formidable)


lyrics in french:

Formidable, formidable
Tu étais formidable, j'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables,
Formidable,
Tu étais formidable,
J'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables.

Eh, l'bébé, oups : mademoiselle,
Je vais pas vous draguer, promis, juré,
J'suis célibataire et depuis hier - putain,
J'peux pas faire d'enfants, mais bon, c'est pas... eh, reviens !
5 minutes quoi, j't'ai pas insulté, j'suis poli, courtois,
Et un peu fort bourré et pour les mecs comme moi
Vous avez autre chose à faire, vous m'pourriez vu hier
Où j'étais

Formidable, formidable
Tu étais formidable, j'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables,
Formidable,
Tu étais formidable, j'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables.

Eh tu t'es regardé, tu t'crois beau
Parce que tu t'es marié ?!
Mais c'est qu'un anneau, mec, t'emballes pas,
Elle va t'larguer comme elles font chaque fois,
Et puis l'autre fille, tu lui en a parlé ?
Si tu veux je lui dis, comme ça c'est réglé,
Et au p'tit aussi, enfin si vous en avez,
Attends 3 ans, 7 ans et là vous verrez
Si c'est

Formidable, formidable,
Tu étais formidable, j'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables,
Formidable,
Tu étais formidable, et j'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables.

Et, petite, oh, pardon : petit,
Tu sais dans la vie y'a ni méchant ni gentil,
Si maman est chiante, c'est qu'elle a peur d'être mamie,
Si papa trompe maman, c'est parce que maman vieillit, tiens !
Pourquoi t'es tout rouge? Beh, reviens, gamin,
Et qu'est-ce que vous avez tous
A me regarder comme un singe, vous ?
Ah, oui, vous êtes saints, vous,
Bande de macaques !
Donnez moi un bébé singe, il sera

Formidable, formidable
Tu étais formidable, j'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables,
Formidable,
Tu étais formidable, j'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables

Comm'on! I was referencing Darth Vader... for some reason.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Coeur-de-Pirate-Wood-Wires-Session
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Coeur-de-Pirate-Commes-Des-Infants

Coeur de Pirate - Wood & Wires Session has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo.

Coeur de Pirate - Commes Des Infants has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo.

Yeah, I was surprised at how ignorant Bill was on this too, although it wouldn't be the first time Maher ignored the facts to suit his own preconceptions (vaccines, anyone?)

At this point, it becomes increasingly difficult from a technological standpoint to put the genie back in the bottle. The internet, as a technology stack from browser to OS to network layer to hardware to comms protocols is now a hugely complex device. There are multiple attack points where malicious entities can insert "back doors" to access supposedly private communications. And governments are just one group of spies. There's also criminals and even scarier, corporations.

The only way I can possibly imagine it ever being truly secure is an end to end open technology stack that is peer-reviewed for potential issues constantly, but that would essentially mean tearing down all existing infrastructure, so it's just not going to happen.