Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by HippoCrushEverything, Jan 8, 2017.
Nah, they've fixed that. They're building some buildings with plants on them:
Two buildings per billion cars should even China out.
Psshh just use a really long net.
Edit: Address space junk. No need to worry about the ozone.
The Russians have been using Hall-effect thrusters for four or five decades now, and they're becoming more common on Western spacecraft too. Their primary purpose is station-keeping (providing the small amount of thrust that is required to maintain a particular orbit over the weak atmospheric drag on the satellite). They are not, as far as I know, used for interplanetary transfers.
Riben guizi have deployed solar sails on experimental spacecraft. JAXA used IKAROS to test the use of thin-membrane solar sails, with integrated attitude control and power production (solar panels integrated into the sail).
they are in kerbal as well fyi
very weak thrust makes for hour long burns to reach even the closest destinations ugh
Decent news regarding F-35 performance. The outcomes from Red Flag are much more consistent with pilot testimony I've heard before than the doom-and-gloom reports from elsewhere. The essence is that the F-35 has kinetic performance (that is, the ability to accelerate and maneuver) similar to Gen IV aircraft, but its electronic attack capabilities are vastly superior. There's reason to take the touted kill-ratio with a grain of salt, but the testimony from commanders has been glowing. Very high combat availability (especially for an aircraft essentially still in testing), and in addition to being a pretty capable strike fighter in high-threat environments, it's been an excellent low-observable sensor platform that is able to feed targeting data to Gen IV aircraft taking up the rear who can then fling missiles from outside the threat envelope, even after the F-35 has expended its stores - pretty much exactly the package as advertised. Its performance when working in tandem with the F-22 and legacy fighters was very well regarded, especially against "advanced threats" (which is more or less a euphemism for simulated S-300s).
Still, I'm probably the only guy in Canada who thinks we aren't buying enough of these.
why do people want less than you do
Three rockets shot a a town in the south last night. It has been a while since we had ourselves a decent operation/war.
The conventional wisdom among the Canadian defense press is that it is "more plan than we need", or, that is, that a stealth platform is tantamount to an aggressive, unilateral foreign policy. My view is that setting aside major tactical capabilities implies that you know what the geo-political situation is going to look like 25 years from now, and I reject the idea that a strong military is tantamount to an aggressive foreign policy (as opposed to an independent one).
How is this conventional or wisdom? Sounds like the sort of ignorance some military figures displayed around the time when steam ships or aircraft became a thing.
Saw some of these on transport. They look pretty cool.
I thought they were Starstreaks or something but Google told me they're Stingers.
The former looks funky as well with its three kinetic energy anal penetrators:
Keep in mind, this is not the view of the military in Canada. Both the civilian Ministry of Defense and military leadership have made it clear that they think the F-35 is ideal, and that our previous 'tentative order' of 65 aircraft was not ideal and was, rather, the absolute bare minimum required for the air force to function.
Indeed, in the leaked diplomatic cables, the US Department of State expressed strong displeasure at this number (irrelevant of the aircraft type) since it essentially implied that Canada would be seeking assistance from Air National Guard units should there be another 9/11-type shutdown of airspace in North America in the future.
Rather, this view is coming from the press who have an idealistic view of Canada as multilateral and diplomatic, and an adherent of minimalism in the use of force. While I agree that these are good ideals that should be striven towards, there's this weird idea that any preparation for eventualities unbecoming of these ideals is tantamount to rejecting them. This is typical of the paranoid and self-defeating central-Canadian brand of nationalism that views any sign of 'Americanism' as to be strictly avoided, even if, as in this case, doing so ironically only increases Canada's dependence on the United States.
The military, for its part, has basically says that its wishlist would be to have a Harrier-carrier (typified by a Juan Carlos type craft) on either ocean with two-and-a-half squadrons of F-35Bs (one each for the ships, and one half-strength squadron for training), plus 100 Gen 4.5 or 5 fighters of any type for domestic service and support abroad. But good luck ever having that see the light of Parliament. Even though doing so would give a decent high-low capability, and that (aside from the ships) 100 Gripens + 30 F-35Bs wouldn't be that far off the quoted $9B for 65 F-35As.
Looks like a big ass taser
baby why dont you want us
Oh believe me, this kind of self-defeatism is very familiar to a European. Kinda difficult to have a rational discussion with f.ex. a German about military matters because most of them seem to believe that if they just replaced guns with flowers, all would follow. And that any talk about national defense or deterrence is pure propaganda made by evil corporations in order to keep oppressing the poor and starving people of Africa.
Here we still have some old military and ex-military cronies & defense ministers who near-completely disregard the impact of electronics on the battlefield, and they occasionally get vocal about the subject of equipment that's "needlessly complicated". While such equipment does exist, and I'm certain that for some uses the F-35 might not be the most cost-effective tool available, the arguments they make are often ridiculous. For example, to these people, pointing out that stealth features will not make the aircraft completely unobservable means that the aircraft is useless.
I had an interesting talk with a fighter pilot a while ago. The Finnish Air Force trains regularly with the Swedes, and they have, until recently, been the only politically viable choice for a foreign opfor. Before 2007 when FAF F/A-18s went trough MLU1 that gave them the JHMCS + AIM-9X combo, Gripens used to dominate the Finnish pilots in close engagements, especially at higher altitudes. JAS 39 is a much more manoeuverable aircraft; go see an air show with those two, it's like night and day. After they got the helmet upgrade, the Hornets completely reversed the kill ratio, scoring even more kills against the Gripens than the Gripens used to score against the Hornets.
An F-35 pilot can fire a much wider array of weapons with his/her/apache helmet-mounted sight, probably with greater efficiency than the same pilot could in an upgraded F/A-18 C/D. This single feature alone can mean a huge advantage in combat. To not take new developments into account is stupid, and to measure performance of today's aircraft using the exact same parameters that would have been used in the 70's is not necessarily the best approach.
Not necessarily a question of not wanting US assistance but the president you recently elected hasn't exactly been keen on preserving defense commitments -> Canada might need some insurance in case the tweeting gets too intense and someone gets triggered and grabs the other party by the pussy.
This applies to the rest of the Western World as well.
To take a joking post seriously:
No matter the incompetence that currently occupies the White House, the United States will remain Canada's closest partner in defense. Canada chose in the 50s to accept US nuclear doctrine instead of developing our own, and that, given the comparative strength of Canada and the overwhelming threat of the USSR, that the concessions of collective defense with the United States more than offset the alternative, between NORAD, the DEW line, and the now-integrated command structure. At this point, undoing those decisions is beyond the realm of economic sense.
Ideally with the sanction of the UN and ideally through existing structures like NATO, I expect that Canada will continue to use force for what it perceives to be good, multilaterally, with our allies, and in particular the United States. Within these structures, when defining collective policy, one of Canada's most prominent tools of influence otherwise US-led policy is the ability to say no. It did so in Vietnam, and it did so in Iraq. The more significant the support at your disposal, the more significant the meaning of withholding those resources. Moreover, maintaining the ability to say yes within those structures without the explicit sanction of the United States is also important, which I believe France more-or-less accomplished in Libya (although that too appeared to be unwise in hindsight).
More broadly, we task our military with a very diverse set of foreign policy goals, many outside the scope of force. After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, the Canadian and US military became the de facto government in many parts of the country. The two main airports in the affected zone, in Port-au-Prince and Jacmel, received their air traffic control from USAF combat controllers and a RCN air-defense frigate, respectively.
A single ship like a Juan Carlos dramatically increases Canada's capacity to say no, to say yes, and to support non-military missions abroad. That without changing Canada's posture or position in any foreign policy decision.
if we stopped getting along with russia canada would probably be forced to get directly involved wouldnt it?
would canada be the target of intercontinental ballistic tweets, if it came to it?
Canada's already the target of Intercontinental Ballistic Tweets:
With respect to actual war, almost certainly yes. Canada has spent a lot of resources checking Russia's aircraft at its airspace, intrusions of Russian icebreakers into Canada's arctic, and spent a huge mount of money and resources on early-warning radar (to track both ICBMs and aircraft) in the far north. Canada's close integration in the US defense infrastructure, and historically very close political support (in the case of Russia and NATO nuclear policy, 'close' is an understatement, its unwavering) means that any hostility towards the US would also manifest in hostility towards Canada. This includes up to and including nuclear attacks. Canadian government and military facilities were included in Soviet targeting lists of the United States, and one can almost certainly assume the same now for Russia. We had continuity of government preparations to that end.
This spawned the joke Incineration Without Representation I referenced in the other thread, that you'd find on bumper stickers in Canada. If the Cold War ever went hot, Canada would almost assuredly be doomed, but it had little to no say in its own eventual fate. A little worse than taxes and tea, huh?
Meet the Female Peshmerga Fighters Taking on ISIS
I like how you just posted a bunch of pictures of women without any context, or text at all for that matter, aside from the title 'woman'. I also like how the women you posted are young and attractive, some wearing makeup and taking selfies. And I fully expect you to defend your sexist nonsense by claiming that you're just supporting people fighting ISIS or whatever, but women have served in the Peshmerga since it was founded. And not all of them are young and pretty, or overseas volunteers carrying some gun. Some are middle-aged generals. This isn't news. Get out of here with your crap.