Skip to main content

View Diary: U.S. Navy Carrier Support Aircraft (18 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Always an interesting read, you are. (8+ / 0-)

    I guess I'm surprised at the material. Not unhappy. Just surprised. I read and am holding open you oeuvre from ... last night?... about the hovering thingy, so I can read it again. That was a great video, btw.

    Good to see your posts, SW.

    •  thanks (6+ / 0-)

      This is going to be a bit of a battle, trying to figure out what we've got, what it costs, what makes sense going forwards. Kossacks are woefully ignorant in general when it comes to this stuff.

      •  Thanks for the crash course (4+ / 0-)

        You bring us a very interesting and informative series

        "I think the earth is a living being. I keep waiting for it to rear up and scrape us all off its back." - Tom Waits

        by frankzappatista on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 02:29:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  True, but there's a legitimate question... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        soonergrunt, kaliope, JeffW, Stranded Wind

        ...about whether additional knowledge about this stuff is worthwhile.  My impression over the years is that additional knowledge about military systems tends to such people into the more-is-cooler-and-better assumptions that have given us a defense budget far in excess of what makes sense for our national security or fiscal well-being.  This might be one area where a policy of willful ignorance, or at least a certain unwillingness to be sucked into the air-show mentality, is best.

        "George Washington said I was beautiful"--Sarah Palin on Barbara Bush, as imagined by Mark Sumner

        by Rich in PA on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 04:35:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Be sure you're not reversing the cause/effect (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JeffW, Stranded Wind, Larsstephens

          Don't you think it would be better for the skeptics to know more about a subject in which they don't naturally involve themselves, in order that they can better understand the issues, than for the current model which is that only the enthusiasts spend the time and energy to learn about the in depth issues?  The result of the current model is the production of large numbers of people who can sprout the gobbledygook that sounds impressive in order to support their deep seated desire to spend money on shiny things that go fast and make a lot of noise.
          I think that National Defense would be better served by the presence of a number of people who could listen to all of that and say "not so fast--what about the multiple failures of the F-35 program to address the waste heat issues, the burgeoning ability of other countries to deploy radar that specifically address the F-35's half-assed stealth, and the fact that the damn thing doesn't appear well with weapons loaded?"

          Insert cryptic phrase that only means something to select group of insiders here.

          by soonergrunt on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 07:28:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site