Great post. So much I'm not familiar with- I'm going to have to re-read to get a full grasp of it all.
Would love to hear thoughts about our still underperforming Ford class, or our "let's copy an existing ship real quick" FFG, which retains 15% of the original design, and has started production without a complete set of blueprints...
Are the military reformists why US fighters generally carry external fuel tanks instead of being built with large internal fuel capacity like their Russian counterparts?
No intelligent person would believe their lies anyway.
No technology or warfare paradigm is objectively superior or inferior. Every strategy has a counter-strategy.
All that matters is whether what you are doing is functional and cost-effective.
I'm not a military person, but I am reminded of arguments I've had about programming paradigms.
Doubtless, there is always someone who thinks simplicity is best, and what this means to them is usually that we should use their favourite language, say Python.
This simplicity is pursued to the detriment of whatever the goal was supposed to be because: if it can't be done in python it isn't worth doing.
The irony, of course, is that python is not simple. It hides all the complexity. And a person who actually understood python would know that.
The truth is they suffer from intellectual laziness; they can't be bothered to learn new things, but they don't want to admit it.
Equally, even basic jet engined aircraft are not simple. Centuries of innovation produced them.
Just as rifles, crossbows and longbows were not considered simple until everyone learned how to make them.
Which is why, mercifully, chimpanzees have not made them yet.
Great post. So much I'm not familiar with- I'm going to have to re-read to get a full grasp of it all.
Would love to hear thoughts about our still underperforming Ford class, or our "let's copy an existing ship real quick" FFG, which retains 15% of the original design, and has started production without a complete set of blueprints...
A fascinating read!
Are the military reformists why US fighters generally carry external fuel tanks instead of being built with large internal fuel capacity like their Russian counterparts?
Yes, in fact that idea is a holdover from WWII which none other than John Boyd insisted continue to be standard practice.
No intelligent person would believe their lies anyway.
No technology or warfare paradigm is objectively superior or inferior. Every strategy has a counter-strategy.
All that matters is whether what you are doing is functional and cost-effective.
I'm not a military person, but I am reminded of arguments I've had about programming paradigms.
Doubtless, there is always someone who thinks simplicity is best, and what this means to them is usually that we should use their favourite language, say Python.
This simplicity is pursued to the detriment of whatever the goal was supposed to be because: if it can't be done in python it isn't worth doing.
The irony, of course, is that python is not simple. It hides all the complexity. And a person who actually understood python would know that.
The truth is they suffer from intellectual laziness; they can't be bothered to learn new things, but they don't want to admit it.
Equally, even basic jet engined aircraft are not simple. Centuries of innovation produced them.
Just as rifles, crossbows and longbows were not considered simple until everyone learned how to make them.
Which is why, mercifully, chimpanzees have not made them yet.