This misses the point. If you gave all of the F-35 IP to India they would still be incapable of developing the indigenous industries required to build a 5th generation fighter in a similar amount of time.
I think that misses the point too. If China has such competent indigenous aerospace industries then they shouldn't be relying on foreign designs for their engines and aircraft. If everyone else can design a proper 5th gen aircraft, why can't China?
Part of China's overall strategy, since the theft of the Su-27 design, has been to exploit foreign concepts to give their military a modern-looking edge. But it's purely a paper tiger - China does not have the industry to even match the engine performance of USSR designs. Hundreds of their J-11 designated Su-27s fly with Russian engines and their current fleet almost entirely relies on potential engine overhauls to meet their minimum operational requirements. The PLA Air Force is an optimistic application of technologies that do not yet exist in the hope that one day it will achieve the desired tactical effect.
We can see the effects of this strategy already. China's J-35 has been reportedly very unstable during flight with avionics and engines only reaching basic functionality. Of course, there is no F-35B clone either, so they've really only implemented the least-strategic models with what sounds like a skin-deep reverse-engineering job. China stole the designs to look tough, and now they're hiding the prototypes before they embarrass them in action. You might as well have just given the designs to India at that point, at least they're honest about their reliance on Russian technology.
I think it's not year 2000 anymore. PLAAF has been on indigenous turbofan more performant than USSR ALs for years. They are no longer reliant on RU engine imports for new/modern platforms, unless for old hardware where it doesn't make sense to re-engine, i.e. the oldest blocks of J11... even J11 post block2 (2010s) have transitioned to domestic engines. The 300s+ of J16 that supercedes J11... domestic engines. Navalized J15 last to transition, but again, now on domestic engines. Areas where they're around parity (i.e. high bypass) they're still making USSR/RU derriviative designs indigenously... hence the actual point, these are engines built in PRC because PRC actually has COMPETENT domestic aero sector to build them - hand plans to India and most other countries including most advanced economies and they simply can't because they lack requisit industrial base.
There's zero credible news on J35s unless you go full retard on Indian or FLG defense writing. Who else can redesign a proper 5th gen except US and PRC. There's a reason USAF aggressor squad to mimick PRC 5th gen J20s uses actual F35s, while aggressor for RU 5th gen is F18s. And why would PLAAF they clone the strategic boondoggles that is F35Bs? STOVL F35B has crippled range for IndoPac theatre to the point where it's essentially irrelevant while mere existence has been largest source of fuckup for the entire F35 program due to common components requirement that dragged the other models down. There's a reason NGAD and other next gen programs are doubling down on range. Why supercarriers sticking with F18s while F35Bs are stuck on amphibs. The actual effects of PRC's successful indigenous aerospace strategy/procurement is throwing US 6GEN program into conniptions - NGAD isn't going back to drawing board after 10 years of development to have entire CONOPS reevaluated because of SU57. It's because PRC aerospace got very competent, very fast in last 15 years.
TBH I think F35 obese/fat/baluga Amy looks nice because it's bulky like harrier. But I also really dug the charm of slack jawed X32. Seeing stealth coatings on these fat birds is like watching goofy kids pull off sick fits.
> Who else can redesign a proper 5th gen except US and PRC.
We don't even know if China's jets are 5th gen. The J-20 is a joke compared to the F-22 despite having 20 of lead time since America's 5th gen debut. If the US is using F-35s to simulate dogfighting a Chinese dual-engine air superiority platform, it's a sign they don't take them entirely seriously. After all, the F-16 is technically a better dogfight aggressor in USAF simulations.
China is starting to see the fruits of their own aerospace investments, but they clearly haven't got parity even with the US's oldest 5th gen inventory. China is too cagey with J-35 information for a serious comparison to the F-35. The J-20 was laughed out of the room when it was announced it couldn't supercruise without engine overhauls, and it still struggles to hit Mach 2 with a combat load. The H20 hasn't even been formally unveiled yet, and it's doubtful it will reach feature parity with the B-2. The entire lineup is inherently questionable.
> And why would PLAAF they clone the strategic boondoggles that is F35Bs?
Uhh... Naval operations?
Look, you're entirely right about the gimped range and the G limits of the F-35B. But the US selected it because there are damning tactical implications from a stealth fighter that can VTOL and carry AMRAAMs. The dogfighting specs really aren't even that relevant if you can get the standard A2A compliment into the air fast enough to fight. The value an F-35 can provide on the deck of an amphib or destroyer is immense and unmatched by any adversary. Screw the smaller range, you're on a goddamn boat! China would absolutely make the F-35B... if they could.
> NGAD isn't going back to drawing board after 10 years of development to have entire CONOPS reevaluated because of SU57.
NGAD can take as long as it needs. There isn't credible competition to America's air superiority platforms and any PRC victory in the Pacific, now or in the forseeable future (next 5-10 years), would have to be won through attrition. China knows this, it's why their shipyards are at-capacity in anticipation of needing the materiel. Taiwan manufactures their own antishipping missiles and America has 50 years of stockpiled AGM-84s. A balls-to-the-wall engagement between both powers could result in a hundred sinked ships in one day. The Taiwan strait is small, and once the PRC goes mask-off they'll have to hide every part of their Navy they don't want destroyed.
I don't doubt that NGAD is taking the PLAAF into account, but I'm pretty sure they know that China's 5th gen jets struggle to maintain 4th generation operational capacity. America's foothold on 5th gen air combat is tenured and proven - China is clinging to a marketing bark over bite strategy that most people have rightfully ignored. If China was certain in their tactical capabilities then they would also copy the United State's strategy of limiting their aircraft inventory. The mass production is a tacit admission that China intends to destroy a lot of J-20s and J-35s.
And we don't even know if US jets are 5th gen. What recent official US documentation that dismiss J20 as not 5th gen (except PLA old classification system that -1 gen across board). Using 5th gen as aggressor to simulate 5th BECAUSE 5th gen isn't about kinematics (i.e. F16) - it's about sensors and other capabilities, why 4th gen gets stomped by 5th gen chillaxing from BVR. Why F35 fine with being more sluggish multirole vs F16.
It's well known PRC turbojet is not at parity with US, but it's also competitive - i.e. not many generations behind, and by all credible accounts have surpassed RU in recent years. The point is they went from having to import engines to having entire supply chain to build 100s of cores at scale, FULLY DOMESTICALLY within last 10 years. That's not just fruits, that's an orchard in terms of statusquo disruption.
>F35Bs
I don't think PLA wouldn't make SVTOL with gimped range if they could, because SVTOL trade for range morely optimized for IndoPac/PRC backyard. SVTOL was good compromise for marines wanting to keep VTOL and select F35 partners with amphib size carriers when program was conceived 30+ years ago, when range/operations was designed around NATO conflict where SVTOL was strategic using makeshift and RU was just across the horizon. That's made increasingly irrelevant now that longer range strikes are proliferating to the point where liability of gimped range means launch platforms (amphibs) can't even operate close enough to launch, which is extra but kick when gimping Bs also gimped A, Cs.
> competition to America's air superiority
The credible competition is the entire PLA concentrated in theatre to prevent US from establishing air superiority in the first place, so in that sense NGAD can take as long as needed because there likely isn't an NGAD CONAP that works againsts PLA, hence the program reset. I would say there isn't a credible way for US to establish/sustain air superiority because superior US aviation can't be sustained. But you're right about attrition, PRC fine with losing entire PLAN if it means US loses entire USN, since PRC has 300x+ ship building capacity to reconsitute faster post war, and global security architecture breaks when USN gone.
> they know that China's 5th gen jets struggle to maintain 4th generation
Again which reports suggest US/DoD thinks PRC struggle with 5th gen operating as 4th gen. What's being written suggest they know the opposite. Excessive amount of words reports have been written on PLA aviation in last 5 years... the opposite of "rightly ignored"... it's borderline fixation. I uppose to mass production of F35s is tacit admission that US is going to lose F35s. Or USAF regrets deprecating all the tooling for F22s when they realized need to for more 5th gen airframes.
>limiting their aircraft inventory
J20 for F22, J35 fo F35 in high/low 5th gen mix. So they are, in fact replicating US high/low mix. J20 production is only 100 / year, about F35 production. The parsimonious interpretation - maturing Chinese aerospace is at point to match US in production, they want 2500+ 5th gen fleet just like US. Short/medium term they're just trying to close the 200 vs 600 5th gen airframe gap. If anything it's tacit admission they're comfortable enough with their 5th gen efforts to mass produce. Or that procurement wise, US seems to be the one who is NOT certain of their 5th gen, holding on to F18s, and now F15EX to plug the low mix gap, while figuring out how to modernize high mix with NGAD.
> It's well known PRC turbojet is not at parity with US, but it's also competitive
Yeah, and I'm not trying to dunk on the value of mass-producing mediocre turbojets. The JF-17 is a masterclass in taking an okay engine and selling it in a package that makes it immensely more valuable. China's cruise missiles have come into a class of their own with a wide variety of cheap expendable engines to pick from; few others are as willing to export it with no questions asked. Making last-gen jets is a booming business.
That being said, you can't really write off the "-1" generation jets because a lot of them haven't been upgraded to anything else. There's certainly a lot of potential to get them into the sky with better engines later down the line, but quite literally that technology doesn't exist in many cases. The J-35 comes with two engines - count 'em, two.
> That's made increasingly irrelevant now that longer range strikes are proliferating to the point where liability of gimped range means launch platforms (amphibs) can't even operate close enough to launch
That's where naval aviation shines, though. The Taiwan strait is tiny - once China presses the red button it will be very easy to identify and attack both the primary airfields China relies on as well as any ships in port. Having a high number of amphibs operating in formation with a few Arleigh Burkes escorting a supercarrier puts extreme pressure on an already strained PLAA/PLAN. With China's investment in naval capacity it's surprising to see them put so much emphasis on a CATOBAR approach that presents such an easy target for adversaries. I think STOVL is highly underestimated in wartime, but we've yet to see a real engagement that tests it so I'll agree to disagree if you'd prefer.
> I uppose to mass production of F35s is tacit admission that US is going to lose F35s.
The US has export obligations, and they're pretty far behind on delivered F-35s by most accounts.
The interest in China's aviation capacity isn't really an indictment of their superiority either. It's mostly reciprocal at this point - Chinese journals had obsessed over American capabilities for the past 2 decades, so now America wants to see what they've learned. In some places they've learned a lot - in other places they're making plainly inflated claims.
> US seems to be the one who is NOT certain of their 5th gen, [...] while figuring out how to modernize high mix with NGAD.
And I don't think that's a bad spot to be in. The F-22 has been on it's way out for some time now - the writing was on the walls if you look at the financials. The F-35 had a troubled development but it's rollout hasn't been markedly worse any other stealth aircraft. F/A-18s and F-15s are going to continue to stick around as missile trucks, but they too will be replaced, maybe even the B-21 if it's AESA radar is good enough.
At the end of the day, you gotta look at it like this; China is overpromising and underdelivering on a relatively constant basis. They did good, and their game of catch-up has yielded them competent advancements and even marketable tech for export. America still did 5th gen better, albeit at extreme expense, and designed their own jets from scratch to boot. If you are afraid of China's plainly fear-coded marketing lifted straight out of Soviet strategy, you're probably also the sort of person that stands up and claps to the TV when Tim Cook says "best iPhone yet" every year.
So does F18, F15... NGAD renders as well. Current theories on NGAD cost cutting design would fall back to 1 engine, because 1 engine is compromise, especially for naval aviation that prefers redundancy. Hence F35B stovl requirements fucking up rest of models due to commonality requirements that limited F35s to single engine, which is why design driving next gen of development moving towards more purpose built airframes for each service requirements... and for 6gen, essentially every 6gen program currently is presumably going to be, from prototypes to renders, 2 engines, kf21, TF Kaan, Tempest/GCAP, FCAS... everyone is reverting back to 2 engines. Count'em, two.
Not to writing off 1 engine. US aero is sufficiently advanced/reliable/optmitized to get away with 1 engine for some fighters, and koodoos for that. But there's also benefits to 2 engines (kinematically, i.e. theres things superhornets are much better optmized for that F35s are not). Having to run 2 engines because 1 engine performance bad would be valid cope if not for the fact that 2 engines also have advantages and and disadvantages can be mitigated through industrial base... i.e. if you can churn out tons of cores to equip 1000s of twin engine fighters, it's not an issue and maybe net benefit. Especially during war when airframes would get shot before components reach end of life. 4th gen fighters are either going to get replaced or shot down, J11s running old RU engines that's PIA to maintain matters less in that context.
>naval aviation shines
I think that's where naval aviation becomes increasingly irrelevant. When IRBMs pushes A2D2 amphibs from operating useful distances. Wargames trying to interdict in TW scenario has CSHs operating from outside 2IC, with tanking in between for the hope you can get carrier air wings in range while keeping carrier at safeish distances (where PLA can "only" deliver 100s of AsHMs instead of 1000s). That bubble is going to get further, meanwhile amphibs+stovl are stuck in bubble where they can't operate permissively, or at at all without being hit by AShMs in 30 minutes. Hence war games that presumes US have chance _require_ distributed and hardened 1IC basing (mainly AGILE in JP). The expectation in planning/procurement (i.e. state of US ship building) for naval aviation is low relative to shelthering air frames under a shit load of concrete on land, even if land closer. TLDR is in TW scenario where STVOL mattered, PRC has already lost, because F35Bs mattering means US operating completely right next to PRC or with uncontested tanking, i.e. not just air supremacy, but utterly crippling PLA mainland fires.
I also don't think PRC is putting so much emphasis on catobar or even carrier OPs in general. PLAN carrier procurement is glacial relative to industrial capacity. 2.5 carriers in 15 years is indicator of being profoundly not serious about carriers, versus PLAN churning out subsurface even when their subs were shit. And now by accounts PLAN 1gen behind US in SSN, and they're building out shipyards that can pump 4-6 SSNs per year. They're serious about subs.
>bad spot to be in
Nor is it a "good" spot to be in. Rejiggering air composition to backstop with 4th gens for roles planners wanted to task with 5th gens because 5th gen and now 6th gen programs haven't delivered to expectations is no thte spot US planners wanted or anticipated to be in.
>interest in China's aviation / China is overpromising and underdelivering on a relatively constant basis / inflated claims
What inflated claims? That PRC can in fact build 5th gen fighters, like DoD/officials recognize? What credible reporting suggest PLA 5th gen performs like 4th gen... that J35 has basic functionality? There was like one report from early 2010s abotu J35/FC31 prototype experiencing difficulties during initial test, i.e. on par with F35 can't fly in lightening, have serious avionic issues 10+ years ago. But no one pretends F35 isn't 5th gen because of intial (and ongoing) teething issues. I did not suggest PRC aviation superiority, but pointing out none of official/credible writngs suggest PLA is making inflated claims... because anyone who watches PLA is frustrated by just how little PLA make claims. At the end of the day, PLA is notoriously opaque, if anything the pattern is rarely over promise anything and deliver out of the blue, i.e. systems get acquired and revealed much later than western MIC reporting. Past 10 years of PLA engine development are countless articles of them talking about technical difficulties and delays and only recently celebrating indigenous self sufficiency / passing RU aerospace. Versus the shitshow that is F35 program, where most popular discourse is parrots lockheed marketing materials vs dod reporting. Or unending wank over NGAD even months before program explodes. If there's anything to be afraid of, it's how LITTLE PRC markets, meanwhile analysts have to count tail numbers from social media photos or airframes from satellites to get actual sense of PLAAF buildup.
Soviet engines were always bad with low hours between overhaul. They didn't think reliability was important if it was just going to be lost in the first hours of WW3.
As someone in their 40s who only received a diagnosis in their 40s, I found Adderall to be transformative. I only recognized the symptoms when my son was diagnosed ADHD and I started researching. It was through various videos and articles that I saw reflections of my own experiences. So I spoke to a doctor about it.
My experience with Adderall is characterized by its stability. I don’t experience the highs and lows often associated with medication. I'm on a pretty low dose and I do not take the medication every day. Instead of feeling energized or high, Adderall brings me a sense of calm, which was somewhat unexpected, considering its use as a party drug. But for me, it silences the constant noise in my head and allows me to just think and speak. I can actually speak to people without my mind rushing ahead of my voice, tangling up all my words. I'm effective at work and my job performance has improved significantly. My wife noticed a change pretty quick in the day to day life around the home as well.
Yup. Same experience in my mid 30s but Vyvanse instead of Adderall. I expect that if I had proper access to healthcare before my mid 20s I’d have had medication sooner in life.
Saying anything negative about adderall is an extremely unpopular opinion on HN, as you can see. It turns out people who take amphetamines really like amphetamines. If you’re a consenting adult I don’t see a problem with it. It gets ugly when you have doctors or teachers suggesting your child should be on them or “tested” for ADD. You are changing your child's brain permanently by making this decision. Changing who they are, for better or worse. Amphetamine salts long term are incredibly altering and heavy handed. They should only be administered to kids in very unusual cases in my opinion. Reduction of effective deep sleep alone should give you enough pause to reconsider. And thats the tip of the iceberg. But I understand it’s hard when you are pressured by doctors or therapists. Or have a particularly unruly child without the time or patience to give them the attention they need. Please for anyone reading this thinking about giving this to their kids, reconsider and exhaust all other options.
The statement was definitely confrontational, and it being a personal opinion does not put it above criticism. Personal opinions can be bad, abhorrent, etc.
And before you launch another ad hominem argument: I do not take stimulants of any kind for my ADHD, so no, I am not defending amphetamines for ADHD because I am addicted to them.
Maybe keep your nose out of other people's medical business?
I see your downvoted but I agree. Workplace "success" is a metric but not the only metric in life. And if you decrease the focus on that metric I think you would find some darker sides. Downvote away.
I don’t take it for Workplace Success. I take it for life primarily. I like that adderall helps me do laundry and plan trips and dates with my girlfriend. Without it I tend to stay “in the moment” and never look towards the future.
I have not found any conflict between enjoying some parts of my ADHD and admitting that is has had damaging effects on many areas of my life from work to self esteem to rock climbing to romantic relationships.
The truth is that the US can no longer afford to be the police of the world, and as this recent Houthi situation has shown, lacks the capacity to do so. What's even more worrisome is the nuclear arsenal of the US could fall into the wrong hands in the event of a civil war - with the upcoming presidential election. Disarmament, of conventional and nuclear weapons, should be a long term goal of the US.
We’ve had warships fighting pirates in the area for two decades, we being Denmark. The US does very little “policing” in the area compare to European nations. Which isn’t too weird considering we’re much more affected by these things.
The US is mostly present when the US wants to do US things in the region. Which is rarely “policing” it, and more about having strong influence. I’m not going to judge whether or not the US should keep a strong geopolitical presence in the world or not, but if you don’t, someone else will probably do it instead making. I know a lot of Americans don’t think of the soft power and influence you guys have around the globe through your hard power, but it would be a very different world if you gave it up.
Disarmament goes in hand with being less aggressive in other parts of the world.
Practically means receding army bases including the biggest American outpost the US has in the middle east at the moment (I'll let you guess which country that is).
It will never happen because it does not align at all with it's foreign / soft expansion policies.
Banning a social media platform controlled by a geopolitical enemy has nothing to do with free speech. The ban wouldn't be on a specific type of speech by rather on a platform. Users can still post all those videos outside of TikTok.
Just a heads up for anyone like me who watches this video: The first 1:30 is a pedantic rant, but it’s actually really interesting once he gets to the point.
Basically, his claim is that forward head posture is actually spinal curvature combined with a compensating upward tilt in the neck. The result is that the exercises described in the OP would be unhelpful and potentially harmful.
