671–680 of 693 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have yet to see a credible report of them denying a US government request.
Big big big big difference between "they usually do what we ask" and "we have operational authority over this system, and can court martial anyone that impedes its operation"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What an odd form of comparison, Military spending is almost entirely a function of tax, not Gross Domestic Product of a country. But taking just one aspect of that graph – overall military spending - it's true that spending has decreased since we were involved in a full scale occupation of another country, assaulting several others, then whack-a-moling the downstream consequences of those wars. It is also (in my humb…
> While spending on education was 42.5 billion in 2022. In case anyone was curious, https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ reports total spending of $1.76 trillion on education in fiscal year 2022. (It also reports defense spending of $1.11 trillion. The subpage https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending includes the number $765.8 billion as part of a breakdown.)
[dupe] Earlier discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37552740
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-driving cars are a much harder problem than anything airborne.
Wrong. Flying from point to point is easy. Following complex ROEs, using combined arms tactics, dealing with system failures, identifying valid targets, and employing weapons are all much harder problems than self-driving cars. It's always hilarious to see the confidently incorrect comments by a bunch of ignorant software developers. The Dunning–Kruger effect is on full display here.
Nothing is harder than self-driving cars. Nothing. We'll colonize Mars before we have a solid solution to that problem. Why? Self-driving cars have to coexist with human drivers and human infrastructure.
Nobody in aviation has that problem. If they did, they'd run screaming for the hills.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was it worth $1,700,000,000,000 though ($1.7 trillion)? I'm all for aviation innovation, but the US defense budget is just wild.
It's had downstream benefits in the hardware, IoT, cybersecurity, devops, missle research, and aerospace segments just off the top of my head. I don't want to dox myself but a lot of GovCloud can be attributed to the F35 development cycle.
This 2020 article is a good read for anyone still listening here: https://siliconangle.com/2020/06/30/us-navys-largest-migrati...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will this always be true though? Not even thinking about advancements in AI, but from a human body g-force standpoint, surely those jets can already pull way more Gs than the pilots can handle. I doubt the software is doing that today but why couldn't there be maneuvers the plane could do at 15 Gs that would help it survive?
I’m sure there is somewhere at the extreme edge of the bell curve that this might be true for, but in general, no. For one, the jets are engineered around the limits of the pilots. These are high performance military aircraft where every ounce of weight matters, the airframe isn’t over engineered to support 15g maneuvers. Ripping the wings off wouldn’t help in an emergency. I made the point later that by the time the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd love to have a civilian version of the F-35 for joyride operators, but I guess half of the point of a military aircraft is that your enemies can't buy one.
The Musk v Zuckerberg cage fight would’ve been much better as a dog fight between their private F-35s. I mean, why should mega billionaires fight the same way any two broke guys from Jersey would anyway?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was an early armchair skeptic, and I've always had a not-so-secret love of the F-16. But after watching an F-35 demo at a recent airshow, I'm a convert. Anyone who says this plane can't out-dogfight an F-16 is delusional.
Was it worth $1,700,000,000,000 though ($1.7 trillion)? I'm all for aviation innovation, but the US defense budget is just wild.
As far as the plane itself is concerned, however, the F-35 is actually a good deal. That's why we're able to sell it to other countries -- it's cheaper than than comparable Gen 4.5/5 fighters. And more reliable, too, than most everything else in our inventory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Stealth is the modern armor: if you can't be seen or can't be tracked, you can't be hit. Next gen weapons are going to make F-35 stealth irrelevant in a handful of years. F-35 is visible on low-frequency radar for hundreds of miles along with general heading and speed. Most missiles are using 30+ year old technology. Since then, the cellphone economies of scale in both R&D and manufacturing have made CMOS cameras b…
> Next gen weapons are going to make F-35 stealth irrelevant in a handful of years. The Ukrainian war is being fought with T-55 tanks, originally produced in 1948. I think you're overestimating the speed of progress in practice. New weapons take time to mass, decades to gain relevance. F35 making earlier weapons obsolete is a big enough deal on its own. All weapons discussed in this thread so far are basically irrele…
WW2 saw the creation of HEAT and the 1970s saw the perfection of HEAT with stuff like the TOW ensuring that any near-peer conflict turned any tank into a necessary, but risky infantry support platform. Modern drones and fire/forget ATGMs have made this even more true.
> New weapons take time to mass, decades to gain relevance.
This is primarily a function of how governments and government contractors work. When you eliminate barriers, you can get something like the famous P-51 which went from design to working prototype in a mere 102 days.
We are seeing something similar with the Lancet drone where a complete redesign has been completed and shipped in a few months and has radically shifted the game in Ukraine. We saw something similar with the FPV drones employed by the Ukrainians.
> rather than sending 40 year old A10s out there and pretending that we don't have any better tech ourselves.
A-10 would be more survivable in the current Ukraine war than the F-35 (which probably couldn't get off the ground most of the time due to the runway conditions).
In the SU-25, targeting the engine means blowing up right next to the cockpit, wings, and munitions resulting in an extremely high loss rate when hit.
In the A-10, the engine is away from the wing and pilot with the wing standing between the engine and munitions. The upward position of the engine also makes it harder to target in the first place. This is why there are quite a few images of them returning with damage to one engine and little else.
September 20, 2023
New evidence has emerged suggesting that the recent F-35 jet crash was not an accident, but a false flag event orchestrated by powerful interests to pursue a case for greater control over artificial intelligence (AI).
The crash occurred on September 15, 2023, during a routine training exercise. The pilot was able to eject safely, but the jet itself was completely destroyed. However, witnesses to the crash report seeing no debris field, and no hero pilot has been presented to the public.
This has led some to believe that the crash was staged in order to justify a crackdown on AI development. AI is rapidly becoming more powerful and capable, and some fear that it could eventually pose a threat to humanity. This crash could be used as a pretext to impose new restrictions on AI research and development.
There is also evidence to suggest that the crash was used to test new AI technologies. Some experts believe that the pilot may have been replaced by an AI system, and that the crash was used to assess the system's ability to handle a real-world emergency.
The US government has denied any wrongdoing, but the lack of transparency surrounding the crash has only fueled speculation. The public deserves to know the truth about what happened, and why the government is so eager to cover it up.
Why AI Control?
Those who believe that the F-35 crash was a false flag event argue that the powerful interests behind it are seeking to control AI in order to maintain their own power. AI has the potential to revolutionize many aspects of society, and those who control AI will have a significant advantage over others.
One specific concern is that AI could be used to develop autonomous weapons systems that could kill without human intervention. This would give those who control AI a terrifying amount of power.
Another concern is that AI could be used to manipulate people on a mass scale. This could be done through social media, advertising, or even through the development of AI-powered propaganda tools.
Those who are concerned about AI control argue that we need to be very careful about how we develop and deploy AI technologies. We need to make sure that AI is used for good, and not for evil.
Conclusion
The evidence suggests that the recent F-35 jet crash was not an accident, but a false flag event orchestrated by powerful interests to pursue a case for greater control over artificial intelligence (AI). This is a very serious concern, and the public deserves to know the truth about what happened. We need to be very careful about how we develop and deploy AI technologies, and make sure that AI is used for good, and not for evil.