DutyCat
-
Content Count
2,229 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by DutyCat
-
-
Here are the cliffs notes on Canada and the CF-18 replacement, to the best of my knowledge (before proceeding, please understand I am not Canadian, have barely a clue how your system works, and am completely apolitical on this one, save for the F-35. I also don't want to see this thread shut down so names will be withheld to protect the eventually proven guilty):
CF-18 upgrade
http://www.cbc.ca/ne...eport-1.2869532
**There are 3 current trends regarding the F-35 and the election from what I can tell
one wants to withdraw from the F-35 and bar it completely in the future.
One wants to have a competition and have the F-35 included
One wants to stay the course with the F-35 currently
**The trouble with a competition-- it looks like a great idea on paper,but... (From a Canadian in the know)
read more about it here:
http://news.national...k-with-the-f-35
http://news.national...ll-our-best-bet
**So a competition would cost money, take 3 years (At a minimum) and leave only 3 candidates, Rafale, Gripen NG, F-35. Hear it from a Canadian!
**But then the plot thickens!!! Can Canada have cake and eat it too eh?
http://www.defensene...-f-35/72636328/
However, I do believe that would include remaining in the JSF program, and I can imagine a country like say Australia which is buying 100 F-35s, might take a bit of issue with a nation buying none getting a large workshare. A lot of partner nations are looking for additional work on the F-35, Canadian contracts in the future would be hotly contested with a lot of arm twisting to see they don't get them should they buy something else (Just my opinion)
So thats all I got right now...
A "new" competition for Canada would be stupid. The F-35 clearly outclasses anything it would compete with. It simply comes down to if Canada wants to pay for the capability. If they do, buy the jet and get on with business. If they decide they can't afford it, or can't afford it in enough numbers, then choose from the Gripen/SuperHornet/Rafale/Typhoon. No "new" competition is needed as the capabilities and cost of these platforms are well known. Just decide what suits you best and buy it. It should take you about an hour to make that decision. Everything has been on the table for years. Jeesh.
-
Agreed, it almost looks computer generated. I still can't decide if the F-35 is attractive or butt ugly. In that view, it looks pretty good.
The C is the best looking version of this jet.
-
Read the book over the summer in hardback ('cause that's how I roll). I thought the book was okay. I did not think it was a riveting page turner. It was more like, "This happened, so I did this to fix it." Some of the "fixes" seemed improbable.
I thought the movie was better than the book. There is more humor, for one thing (admittedly MUCH easier to convey in a movie than a book, where it is almost impossible). One of the things I specifically looked for was authenticity in the Martian landscape. If they had filmed it in Arizona somewhere with a red filter, then combined it with some CG space shots, it would have been a letdown. But, they didn't. Most of the background around Matt Damon appeared authentic.
Nit picks:
- The strength of the windstorm was already mentioned. I think I read somewhere were 100mph winds on Mars (which do occur), would have the strength of a 11mph wind on Earth. However, it is a forgivable plot device.
- It is obviously not Martian gravity, which is less than half of Earth's.
- .Acoustics were based upon Earth air. Sound travels more slowly, has a lower pitch, and dissipates much more rapidly on Mars.
When you are watching the film, the wide angle shots make it seem like you are on Mars. But the closer shots of Whatney working look and sound as though they were shot here on Earth, with the exception of the background visuals. So I think they missed the chance to make it feel like a really alien environment. Maybe that was deliberate. I think that part of the purpose of this movie, aside from making money, is to show people that a viable mission to Mars is within our reach using near future technology. If they made it feel TOO alien, I think folks would be frightened and put off.
I do not know if the fact that the Russians were not being featured vs the Chinese as an intentionally political decision by Andy Weir. I think they did a good job making a statement against the usual politics by having one of the Chinese scientists say "let's keep it among scientists." There were also some supporting scenes of the Chinese people cheering on the rescue mission. So clearly, there was a sub-message of international cooperation. But it is true that the Russians weren't mentioned at all.
As far as money goes. Everything you see on screen is doable if we can somehow get hacks out of government who do not know how to handle money. We spend $300-400 billion every year just on debt service. The TARP bail out a few years ago ended up being about $450 billion. NASA's budget is 18 billion or so annually. What is missing is political will of the American people and government. When Newt Gingrich was running for president in 2012, he did a rally here in Florida and talked about going back to the moon, establishing a base to test out interplanetary technology, and then going on to Mars. His was ridiculed and his poll numbers went through the basement the next day. I think people would support space exploration if our budget process were more disciplined. However, they are not going to support it if we are $20 trillion in debt. That debt is a huge albatross around our neck.
-
Ok, folks, JAXCON 2016 has been in the planning stages for a couple of months now, and shortly I will update our club website with the details of this year's show.
I can tell you right now that it will be a "themed" show, recognizing the 75th anniversary of NAS Jacksonville. All that really means is our awards for this year will be designed to pay tribute to NAS JAX, and we will have a special award for subjects associated with the base. The contest overall remains the same with all of our regular categories, with a couple of slight refinements. Civil will be broken up into airliners and everything else, and the scale separation for subs will be "1/350 and smaller", and1/351 and larger. Last year, the scale breakout was 1/72, and we had big 1/144 subs competing with 1/700 subs, and no 1/72 subs showed up, IIRC.
You can also count on the return of the JAXCON commemorative pin. That was a BIG hit last year. Everyone wanted one and we ran out. We are going to increase our order this year and the goal is to give one to every entrant and every vendor.
Once we get the awards in, I will post pics of them on the club facebook page and let you guys know. We also are trying to work on little "something something" extra . Can't announce that yet because I am not sure we can pull it off. Stay tuned.
G.G.
-
It does say Michelin there, it the tire does not appear to be a retread, BTW. I have personally never seen a retread on a military, or any other aircraft. Not saying it isn't done. I don't know. It could be that the Goodyear tire pictured is manufactured under contract by Michelin. Maybe Goodyear does not make that size and Michelin does, but Goodyear wants to be able to distribute it with their logo.
-
RIP. The memorial article above is a testament to his talents and it is nice to see that it focused on him as a luminary in the world of scale miniatures, and not just a "hobbiest."
Unless you are close to someone who does our kind of work, it is difficult for John Q Public to appreciate the skill and artistry involved.
-
Saw this in the current FSM as a new release. Is it new tool or a repop of the Minicraft kit? I figure it is unlikely to be a Revell, Mono, or Airfix mold.
-
You cannot eliminate pollution entirely as it is a product of human industrialization, especially in the petroleum area. The military represents a relatively small footprint overall. I have heard that some of the worst polluters by are the giant cargo ships who use very low grade waste oil for their boilers.
-
looking at the promo clips .. I didn't even bother with either...............
Well, you have to have the right mind set. They are not for everyone. They are as stupid as can be, but that is what is fun about them.
Best line in Sharknado 3 was Ann Coulter as VP, when she said something to the effect of, "I have empathy for the sharks, but they are ruining America!"
-
I am a fan of classic AND cheesy Creature Feature movies and novels from way back. As many of you know, the SyFy channel has gotten the public's attention over the past few years by marketing Science Fiction/Horror movies featuring increasingly ridiculous premises...stuff like "Mansquito" and "Dinocroc," and of course the more recent "Sharknado."
Sharknado is so ridiculous that you can't even suspend belief like a traditional creature feature, yet it became a pop-culture phenomenon, so much so that Sharknado 2 was made, which included a bunch of cameos by celebrities. Well, Sharknado 3 is now out, with an encore presentation tonight on SyFy. Again, a bunch of cameos, including Mark Cuban as the president and Ann Coulter as VP. Even Bill O'Reilly was asked, but he turned them down, and joked about it last week on his show.
Following Sharknado tonight will be Lavantula, about and invasion of fire breathing spiders spawned by an erupting volcano.
So, if you are interested in a few laughs and clean mindless fun, tune in. Everyone involved in these projects is laughing at themselves as much as we are laughing at them.
-
For sure, the flight station windows on the P-8 are wholly inappropriate for maritime patrol. You can't see jack in the turn down low. Those overhead windows on the P-3 and P-1 are used by the pilot to look out of while banking low over the water, you can pick up the horizon right through those...they don't exist on the P-8.
It just demonstrates what a compromise airframe the P-8 is. Clearly, the Japanese saw that too, so they went with a clean sheet design. Maybe the P-1 should have been a Japanese-American joint development product and we could have bought P-1s. Assuming comparable avionics, the robust nature of the P-1 airframe and dedicated design seem superior.
-
Okay, well it seems pretty universal, and as aptly illustrated by MoFo's response, we can't even have a discussion about the possibility of a Forum section on politics without it becoming personal. Just this thread sparked anger in him and perhaps others,
I guess, as was pointed out, we cannot, as a species, discuss controversial subjects rationally as each of us is emotionally invested in our perspective. The lizard portion of our brain still dominates, and as long as there is competition over resources and ideologies, it will remain with so. I guess we better keep our defense budget intact.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
No more politics here for me, which probably means I won't have very much to say. I am sure some of you will be happy about that.
-
There have been a lot of "political" threads over the years, or that have evolved into political discussions for one reason or another. I am as guilty as anyone if not more so for many of them.
Because some of these threads have became contentious, the Forum evolved into a "No Politics" zone. Some folks out there think that this is the way it should be. After all, this is an aircraft modeling website. Anyone who wants to discuss politics can go to a political website, etc. Okay, fine and dandy, but generally speaking, it is not fulfilling, as I don't know any of these folks and have nothing in common with them. It is like talking politics to strangers. Why bother?
The simple fact is that you guys are my online social circle. I have read numerous posts of yours, and vice versa about all sorts of things. I have a feel for your basic mentalities and perspectives, and although the board leans a bit conservative due to the fact that many of us have military backgrounds, we are not exclusively so. Also, I know that most folks here are intelligent and can put together a decent argument. In short, I care about your opinions, NOT personality-less strangers.
We live in a very politically polarizing era. Perhaps it has always been so, and I just wasn't paying as much attention because I have had other things going on in my life. But I am paying attention now, and am truly troubled by what is going on in our nation. I worry about our future, and the potential failure of the grand experiment we call America. The law of unintended consequences is alive and well. I feel the need to express opinions, get feedback; read others opinions, provide feedback. I realize that one person's opinion on something will not make a difference unless that person is in a position to effect change, but it is worthwhile to have exchanges of ideas in order to evaluate the intellectual merit of those ideas.
I propose a "Politics" section of the board that can be visited by anyone who is up for discussion/debate on the latest issues of the day. If you want to weigh in on something and have a spirited debate, this would be the place to do it. If you just want to cruise by and see what is being discussed, that is okay. If you are completely revolted by any sort of political discussion, then just don't drop in, just like any other section of the board you are not interested in.
What would still be off limits is any personal slander, attack, or name calling. The discourse would need to remain civil.
What do you guys think?
-
Good idea! At the risk of a thread jack...IPMS USA and IPMS Canada need to talk about coming together for a Nats...especially with the lack of hosting bids happening down here in 'Murica. A "North American Nationals" or "CanAm Nats" if you will.
Why would we do that? Canada can have its own nationals. Aside from that, the US Nationals are an open competition. You don't have to a 'Merkin to participate.
-
I saw a story today on the USNI website that the SECNAV has stated that the F-35 should be and undoubtedly will be the last manned fighter the Navy will buy.
Personally, I think it is a bit premature to make that statement. Everything that I have read indicates that AI that is well developed enough to provided anywhere near the autonomy and flexibility of a pilot is WELL over the horizon, not to mention, if you are going to remotely fly the vehicle, the signal can be jammed. Better just to let someone fly it like always. Numbers of aircraft will be down from previous generations, so in terms of expense, I don't see what the concern is. I also do not see what is to be gained by taking a person out of the jet, except for perhaps a payload and slight range increase.
Looking at his bio, I see SECNAV Mabus served as a SWO on the CG-92 Little Rock (decommed 1976). In civilian life, he has mostly been a politician.
-
It almost looks like they hacked the front off of a P-3. forward of the wings.
-
So reluctant to post on this but just in the spirit of expanding this a little. You bring up the couple's rights (which I kind of agree with that point, though I'd never heard it presented quite that way) but if you accept the viewpoint of life at conception, then there are actually 3 people's rights to consider (or more if multiples are conceived). A pro-life viewpoint weighs mostly on the right of the most vulnerable one since the unborn child has no other voice. So there are ways of approaching the subject civilly of course, but it is a very emotional subject from pretty much all sides you look at it.
Bill
Very good. Again I am not really trying start a debate on it. I was just showing how an emotionally divisive subject could be debated by simply representing non personal "viewpoints". I had a similar situation recently with a certain teenage young lady, her boyfriend, and her other boy "friend." When we talked "personally," she would get upset, but when I put in non personal terms like given girl and boy A and boy B, it was a lot more manageable as it wasn't "her." Once it became a non personal hypothetical, she could handle it, even though she knew it was her and so did other adults involved in trying to provide guidance. Go figure.
-
Thanks for sharing your viewpoints on abortion.
No, those aren't mine. I brought it up as an example on how to civilly discuss politics in a thread because exhausted had alluded to reproductive choice in the first line of his previous text.. I am actually pro-choice, but preferably in the first trimester. I think there are too many people in the world as it is, and I am not religious at all...don't believe in a deity, souls, demons or any of it. I am more of a rationalist/scientist/pragmatist. I represented a very conservative point of view as a demonstration of how it can be done respectfully without calling someone a baby killer, or soul destroyer or whatever.
-
Why would you think of doing that when it's clearly against the rules? Any escalation's only going to destroy the thread, which I assume the original poster cares about.
I AM the original poster! lol.
And I was not really going to escalate it with hostile intent or personal attack. In my view, a political post, or a post the evolves in a political direction really should not be a problem if kept civil. Unfortunately, very few people can debate controversial subjects without expressing undue emotion: then the personal attacks and name calling starts and the thread collapses into meaningless slander.
This is how it should be done by adults...
To be clear, this is not a personal argumentative political post, but an example of how a political post can be handled with skill and respect for different points of view
Lets look at one of the things you alluded to in your earlier post above....abortion. Now that is about as hotly debated and emotionally charged subject as we have, right? All sorts of potential for people to get fired up about that.
The liberal position on abortion is about empowering women. The accusation is that conservatives (men inferred) want to control what a woman does with her own body. And if the subject is spun that way, then it seems as though the thoughtless conservatives want to control a woman's private, reproductive choices unjustly.
But let us look at it from another, equally reasoned perspective. A conservative would say that a human life begins at conception, because unless overt action is taken to keep it from developing naturally, a baby will be born. A conservative would also say that no freedom of choice is being denied here, because it is well known that no form of preventative birth control is foolproof, that actions have consequences, and that individuals know before engaging in sex that a possible result of sex is pregnancy. The couples choice was to accept the risk. They made their bed and now have to lie in it.
But there is more, because notice I said couple. It is not just about the woman. Just because her plumbing requires her to be the one that carries the child, it does not mean she has greater rights. There is a partner involved, and if we want to talk about fairness and "equal rights," the we need to equally consider the father. He was also involved in this little roll in the hay and is equally responsible for the result. The parent's choices being made to engage in sex, the product is equal parts genetically of both parents. Where are the father's rights when insisting on a woman's right to abortion (remember it is NOT reproductive choice, as that choice was already made)? The answer right now is nowhere. He has no rights prior to the child being born and has to sit and watch as his progeny is destroyed. That is neither equal, nor fair. However, you can bet your a$ that if the mother decides to carry the child to term, then the father will be expected to pay generous child support for 18 years and then some. After all, the child is his "equal responsibility." And, often times, equal responsibility ends with money, as Mom will often discourage Dad from participating in the child's upbringing when she moves her new man into the picture. She will be a lot more accommodating if the checks stop coming.
The point here being that it is not so simple as "the conservatives want to unjustly control what women do with their bodies."
But back to the original point. Regardless of the difference of opinion that two people may have, be completely non political on the board here inhibits the free exchange of ideas among peers. And make no mistake about it, everyone who frequents this board regularly is a peer in the modern sense of the word. We talk about all sorts of things, and many have nothing to do with modeling. This last little exchange between us would not be possible if no politics were strictly observed. Yet we did all of that, and I doubt that you are personally offended by anything I said here.
I for one think politics is okay as long as folks don't get personal.
-
Nope. The Right wants more of my low to middle class tax dollars than the Left. The Right wants to determine how my sisters and mother use their body. The Right wants to socially engineer the country by undercutting funding for education. The Right has continuously voted to slash Veterans benefits, including education, vocational training and the ongoing rehabilitation for our injured Warriors. The Right doesn't know that it even wants these things until someone challenges it on it.
I don't have a problem with you holding your views, I have a problem with you generalizing the Left without a leg to stand on.
I had a nice response all ready to zing your way, but decided against it.
I will just send you a copy of my book when it comes out.
-
Jennings was an AF officer....
So where is this coming from, then? He should understand. I don't get it.
-
Our freedom is directly attributable to their struggles, their insight and foresight, and their sacrifices *off* the battlefield and in no way connected with the military.
We created Memorial Day to honor our war dead, and Armistice Day/Veterans Day to honor our veterans, living and dead. We've corrupted the meaning of the celebration of the 4th of July with the disturbing new trend in America of fetishizing and worshiping all things military.
OOOOOOKKAAAAY....
This sounds more like an anti-military rant than "Americans don't know their history." Just the way you have used terminology is pejorative. Although it is you that originated this thread, it is you that do not seem to get it.
American independence was not the exclusive domain of the civilian political effort of the period. Nor is the modern meaning of the holiday only about celebrating their efforts. It took a war (actually, several wars) to secure the future of the nation. Although the ideas, persuasive writings, and eventual proclamations originating from the enlightened thinkers of the period were critical to the form, make no mistake, America was established, grew, and has been maintained primarily through military power. The military, represented by our citizen soldiers, was responsible for shedding the blood that established this great nation. It was not the Founding Fathers, generally speaking, except for those few that donned the uniform.
Yes we have Veteran's Day to honor Veterans (serving and retired), and we have Memorial Day to honor the sacrifice of those who gave their life or limb(s) in battle, but that is not the same thing as honoring an institution. As well as the political things you mentioned, Independence Day honors the institution that secured and maintains it....the US Military. The fact that we use fireworks to celebrate July 4th is an homage to the military, perhaps inspired by the "rocket's red glare" of the Ft McHenry attack during the War if 1812.
On Independence Day, we celebrate all things that we consider characteristically American: "Land of the free, home of the brave," the founders, our democratic institutions, hot dogs and burgers on the grill - simple food for simple frontier folk, and yes, the contributions of our "take it to 'em" military heritage.
I don't at all see the worship of our military as a "disturbing new trend." I don't see any evidence that that is happening at all. In fact, I see the opposite. Hardly anyone serves any more, and as a result, our modern civilian population is rapidly losing context and the ability to relate to the military mission or its mindset. Our current president, for example, never served and has no clue on the basic concept of "negotiate from a position of strength."
If there is a trend of military appreciation developing, then I say great. It is long overdue. The military has earned and deserves a place of honor in American society. They should be celebrated, especially on July 4th. The only corruption here is your attempt to disenfranchise the military from a great national holiday that they were largely responsible for creating.
Your attack on the military on Independence Day of all days comes across as personally motivated. Have you ever served in the military? Did you have a bad experience?
Answer honestly here. I am not trying to start anything. I am just trying to figure the source of your motivation as it seems WAY out there from where I am sitting.
-
It's politiky, and the application of facts is also pretty picky-choosy.
Saying that the Right doesn't apply or impose sweeping policy is laughable. Nothing small about government, no matter who runs it.
Yes, they do on some things...but generally speaking, with a few exceptions, the right wants to stay hands off. Today's left is left is far more aggressive and controlling when it comes to progressive social engineering efforts. The right wants to spend money on defense, but then you get into that "enriching the military industrial complex" the left likes to harp so much about.
I don't want to give the impression that all if the social change championed by the left in past decades has been bad. There were a bunch of labor, civil rights, social security, and banking regulatory initiatives that came about in the middle of the last century. These were Democratic initiatives. However, most of the crap they are trying to do now I personally don't agree with.
-
Getting pretty politiky there, aren't you?
Yeah, you're right. My bad.
I just get a little upset when the "right winger" pejorative generalities start getting thrown out. There is a lot of intellectual merit in traditional conservative thought if one takes the time to look beyond some of the typical liberal claptrap accusations. There is SOME intellectual merit in a few liberal positions as well (like maybe 10%), IMO
In all fairness, he did call out some "left wingers" as being intolerant. I will also acknowledge that there is bias and closed mindedness among some extreme conservatives as well.
Space Shuttle AM list
in Real Space Modeling
Posted
Beanie Cap is currently OOP, but will be back when I get a chance to improve the master and create a new mold.
G.G.