Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The F-35's $400k helmet

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 136 posts

Re: The F-35's $400k helmet

#51

Post by trhway »

x4m wrote: post #38
trhway wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

T-14 is still not in the army. Probably not even in the mass production yet. No T-90 has been sent to Ukraine. Modernized versions of T-72 is still in wide service with Russian army. Regular Russian army units (at the scale of several "battalion tactical groups", about 2000-3000 soldiers total) were sent to Ukraine in August 2014 - they stopped very successful Ukraine offensive by encircling significant forces near I…

Sources plz. >>Modernized versions of T-72 is still in wide service with Russian army. Oh, that's funny. SKS is in wide service. Along with Mosin-Nagant.

>>>Modernized versions of T-72 is still in wide service with Russian army.

>Oh, that's funny. SKS is in wide service. Along with Mosin-Nagant.

In active service Russia has 2000 T-72, 2000 T-90, 3000 T-80. And 3 or 4 of T-14. So, according to you, which tank is in wide service in Russia?

Re: The F-35's $400k helmet

#52

Post by vinceguidry »

ghostberry wrote: post #47
cm127 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Without such technology, war wouldn't be profitable. Without the profits, there would be no incentive to fight. But as long as we carry the bigger gun, we'll always have an incentive to fight.

"Without such technology, war wouldn't be profitable. Without the profits, there would be no incentive to fight." This is without a doubt one of the most backwards ignorant things I have ever read online. It might come as a shock to you, but humans have been killing other humans since the stone age. And, as time has gone on, it's become less and less likely for a person to die violently, at the same time that arms te…

To play Devil's advocate here, war was profitable in the stone age just as it is now. That said, technology does tend to reduce the number of casualties, with a few notable exceptions.

Re: The F-35's $400k helmet

#53

Post by furyg3 »

jacquesm wrote: post #40
furyg3 wrote: post #25

It's a very 'agile' project. When will it be done? Don't ask! How much will it cost? Who knows! It's going to be awesome, though! But... you don't have to wait to see how powerful this weapons system is. The F-35 completely took out the Dutch government before one even rolled off the assembly line! Note to governments: when ordering your weapons systems it may be a good idea to get a cost-per-unit quote before signin…

> Note to governments: when ordering your weapons systems it may be a good idea to get a cost-per-unit quote before signing. What makes you think they're unhappy about the outcome?

Well considering parliament dissolved over the issue I can imagine there's a lot to be desired.

However, like construction projects, the original politician/official get the credit for signing the contract and their successor actually has to deal with the terms.

Re: The F-35's $400k helmet

#54

Post by warkid »

briandear wrote: post #39
Htsthbjig wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish the US go home instead of seeding war anywhere they go. I visited Ukraine last month and one of the best things I saw was that war there was contained and "light" using mostly light weapons. Russia probably has not the tech the US has, but Europe does, and Europe does not need a heavy nuclear war or loosing their main energy supplier(Russia).

The U.S. invaded The Crimea? Weird. Chechnya, Degestan? The U.S. seeded war in the Balkans? I remember all those U.S. supplied snipers in Savajevo killing civilians in Sniper Alley.. How about all of those American made AK-47s being used across Africa? I'm not sure how discouraging Russian and Islamic expansionism is somehow 'seeding war.' I don't recall Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait being 'seeded' by the U.S.…

Wow, please, easy mister Obama, nobody's going to take you Peace Prize back!

Re: The F-35's $400k helmet

#55

Post by nazgob »

trhway wrote: post #51
x4m wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sources plz. >>Modernized versions of T-72 is still in wide service with Russian army. Oh, that's funny. SKS is in wide service. Along with Mosin-Nagant.

>>>Modernized versions of T-72 is still in wide service with Russian army. >Oh, that's funny. SKS is in wide service. Along with Mosin-Nagant. In active service Russia has 2000 T-72, 2000 T-90, 3000 T-80. And 3 or 4 of T-14. So, according to you, which tank is in wide service in Russia?

Where did you get data about 2k T-90s in service?

Re: The F-35's $400k helmet

#56

Post by Altenuvian »

I'd love to hear John Carmacks' take on this. They had to solve very similar problems when developing this helmet:

extremely low-latency head & eye-tracking, managing depth-of-field, integrating multiple input streams, providing non-distracting information overlays etc.

Re: The F-35's $400k helmet

#57

Post by shit_parade »

briandear wrote: post #39
Htsthbjig wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish the US go home instead of seeding war anywhere they go. I visited Ukraine last month and one of the best things I saw was that war there was contained and "light" using mostly light weapons. Russia probably has not the tech the US has, but Europe does, and Europe does not need a heavy nuclear war or loosing their main energy supplier(Russia).

The U.S. invaded The Crimea? Weird. Chechnya, Degestan? The U.S. seeded war in the Balkans? I remember all those U.S. supplied snipers in Savajevo killing civilians in Sniper Alley.. How about all of those American made AK-47s being used across Africa? I'm not sure how discouraging Russian and Islamic expansionism is somehow 'seeding war.' I don't recall Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait being 'seeded' by the U.S.…

It's no longer 1930 and the US no longer has any claim to moral superiority.

The in the last decade US policy has killed hundreds of thousands. I suggest you update your knowledge of history.

Re: The F-35's $400k helmet

#58

Post by benihana »

sschueller wrote: post #5

All this technology just to kill people. It is a sad world we live in.

I hear what you're saying but that view is too cut and dry and cynical when you look at reality. Some of the most amazing things we've accomplished as humans and some of our best amenities have been born out of military needs or technology. There is also a massive amount of infrastructure that supports this single aircraft and we as a society have benefited from that infrastructure.

Is it sad that the internet has connected the entire world in ways no one foresaw? That through it ideas and information flow so much more effortlessly than they used to? Is it sad that anyone with a sufficiently powerful receiver can contact a satellite and find out where they are on the planet to an accuracy of a couple meters? Is it sad that digital cameras have become ubiquitous and we can capture whatever moment when want on demand? All of those technologies came from the military. Do you even stop to think that America's government is paying for the upkeep of and freely giving access to the GPS we've come to take for granted?

America's Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs are another great example. Mercury and Gemini both used modified ICBMs where they swapped the nuclear warhead with a pod that had men in it. America used those (and the Russians used their versions) to put the first men in space which started the space race which has ultimately given us GPS, and untold knowledge about our planet and what we're doing to it.

To say that the military only creates technology that kills people is disingenuous when all you have to do is stop and think about the modern tech we use every day.

Re: The F-35's $400k helmet

#59

Post by smackfu »

skeuomorf wrote: post #49

While the technology in this helmet may turn out to be pretty great, I still can't view the project as a whole (The F-35) as more than a failure. It's taken them a lot of time and money to develop a mediocre aircraft, here's Pierre Sprey's opinion on it (Designer of the F-16) "The F-35 was born of an exceptionally dumb piece of airforce PR spin" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-dia...

Re: The F-35's $400k helmet

#60

Post by supercoder »

Altenuvian wrote: post #56

I'd love to hear John Carmacks' take on this. They had to solve very similar problems when developing this helmet: extremely low-latency head & eye-tracking, managing depth-of-field, integrating multiple input streams, providing non-distracting information overlays etc.

Yeah, I'd imagine Carmack can take some of the ideas from the solutions developed in this helmet.
Post reply on HN