To understand just one of the Monarch's many powers as the representative of the Crown, you should read the essay entitled The Royal Power Of Dissolution. There is no "normal" limit, the Monarch, acting on behalf of the Crown, is Sovereign.
What do you think is illegal? This posting refers to several positions (none of which say that men can't apply), but the posting itself is targeting women. If there was a posting at $ALUMNI school, would you say that was illegal?
This is kind of neat, but I am intensely irritated at software on github whose license is: pay us money before you use this (https://github.com/unidoc/unipdf/blob/master/LICENSE.md). There's nothing wrong with commercial software, but why put it on github?
A-10s don't do well in near peer competitions. They are only good for harassing people in the third world who don't have any kind of anti-air capabilities.
I'd say the first two, but not heat signature. However, it's also lacking in sensors. As in, it has to operate low and slow in the daylight, because the pilot can't see well enough to operate any other time. The officially supported way to get low light/IR vision on it is to startup a Maverick missile on the wing and use the sensor on that to see.
Interestingly, in a first-ever move (AFAIK), the Pentagon ordered the tooling for the F-22 destroyed when they shut the program down. In every other case I'm aware of (and I participated in both shutting down and bringing back things when I worked in the aerospace industry), tooling and documentation/artifacts are carefully stored and preserved for possible future use. If there's one thing the DoD does know how to do, it's configuration management and archival/storage.
That's not completely correct. The Air Force didn't destroy the tooling and documentation. They made an effort to preserve it. But even so it appears some was lost or is no longer usable.
> Isn't the A-10 an entirely different kind of fighter?
Doesn't matter. The A-10 is a fully functional aircraft, which puts it far, far ahead of the F-35.
> I don't see how a close air support plane would replace the F-35.
For some reason, they tried to design the F-35 to do everything. What the original comment is saying, I believe, is that the A-10 and F-22 were very successful and capable aircraft, and between them could handle most all of the situations the F-35 was supposed to be able to handle (but can't). If we spent even a fraction of the cost of the F-35 on updating their design, they could be even more capable.
Not sure why this is getting downvoted. It’s pretty much a view held by some factions of the military. Except a lot of the talk is about upgrading F-15s and A10s. We really don’t have a replacement for the A10 which is an incredible workhorse and almost universally loved for its close air support capability.
Unless it’s getting downvoted because the two things aren’t at odds. It would cost orders if magnitude less to just upgrade the A10s and others.
HN doesn't like a realist, apparently. Also, another funny point to this discussion, my opinion on this subject comes directly from a number of Marine Corps pilots and senior decision makers, who I spent a decade working with. I was pretty excited about the F-35 program at first, but after hearing from those who actually had to fly them, and those that were involved in assessing their combat capabilities... Well, let's say that people whose lives depend on the F-35 do not trust them.
They wanted to replace the A-10s because they are very vulnerable to modern anti-air systems. A near peer would whack em out of the sky pretty quickly. The solution is not the F-35, we just need a low RCS A-10.
Ok, what does your low RCS (that'd be stealth) A-10 look like?
Let's put it at medium altitude so that we don't have to try to armor it against manpads.
Then we can probably make it single engine, so we can get a bit cheaper mx.
Let's skip the fuck off huge gun, because it's raison d'etre was killing tanks, but even when it was designed, it was only good against the rear or side of a tank, not the front, and that was 50 years ago. If we use a smaller gun, we can save the weight for more useful things, like guided bombs.
It's going to need much better sensors, since we want it at medium altitude, so let's make sure to integrate them.
If we make it supersonic capable, we can increase the radius it can work over when on station.
I'm not a professional airplane designer so bear with me. This is drawn from my reading of the textbook "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach" by Daniel Raymer.
The challenge is you want something that can linger and pick at targets on the ground with ease. This necessitates a low stall speed, requiring the use of a straight wing. The aerodynamic characteristics of anything resembling supercruise demand a swept wing, which would destroy the "lingering" aspect. So you can't get a good CAS with an airframe that works well for a fighter role.
The gun on the A-10 is useful for strafing runs against infantry, not just concentrated fires against MBTs. To do that, you need a substantial round + LOTS of ammo. The F-35 just doesn't have enough internal storage capacity to service this need. So you've got to keep the gun. It also has barely any external mounting capability for bombs, rockets, and missiles.
So, I'd say it would be something that looks a whole lot like an A-10 but with CAD assisted fuselage shape changes to minimize RCS + new materials + new avionics.
I have no idea how to mitigate MANPADs as I'm unaware of what they use for targeting solutions. The distinct twin-tail on the A-10 was picked to provide a shroud for heat emissions from the engines (c.f. Raymer) to mitigate those types of attacks but I imagine that near peers have increased their capabilities.
If you're moving at medium altitude, you're moving relatively slower (in angular change) for the same airspeed, so you don't need to fly as slow, and you don't need a low stall speed. You just need the ability to carry enough fuel to match your desired loiter time. Most CAS is performed by fighter aircraft at this time, indicating that your supposition that fighters can't do good CAS is false. Also, "supercruise" is a specific term indicating the ability to stay at supersonic speeds for a prolonged time. Most supersonic aircraft can't supercruise, as they don't have the fuel to do so.
The gun may be useful for strafing runs, but it's explicitly designed as an anti-armor weapon, and it fails at it for modern peer tanks. The JSF cannon is still a 25mm cannon, but it's much more optimized for explosive effect, which is more useful than the 30mm anti-armor cannon that the A-10 carries. There may be call for having more ammo (the A-10 carries ~6x more ammo than the F-35), but practically speaking, the A-10 has 9-18 bursts (1-2 second bursts), while the F-35 has 9-10 bursts (~20 round burst). But again, you're supposed to be doing CAS at medium altitude, which means your gun is more of an after thought.
Beyond that, the F-35 has more external mounting capability than an A-10. The F-35(A/C) has a listed external capacity of 15klbs on 6 external stations (5klbs on the inner stations, 2.5klbs on the middle stations, 300lbs on the outer), plus the 2 internal bomb stations (2.5klbs each), 18klbs total. The A-10 has 11 stations, but not all of them can be used at the same time. The outer stations are spec'd for the same as the F-35 (300lbs for AIM-9). But you can use either the side by side or the center station under the fuselage, and the wing stations aren't spec'd as high, for a total load of 16klbs, or 2000 lbs less than the F-35.
MANPADs are mostly IR, but newer ones are imaging IR sensors, and can attack from all aspects. The A-10's shrouding helps against older missiles, but not so much against new ones.
Of course it can't, but the F-35 was meant to replace the A-10, as well as a host of other fighters (F-16, F-15, F-18, Harrier, and probably more). But with stealth.
Some standardisation in fighter design doesn't sound like a bad idea at all, and you can certainly question why you'd need all three of the F-15, F-16 and F-18. But also the A-10 and the Harrier? Those are very different planes with very different roles. I think cramming those two requirements in there is what sunk the F-35. There's no way to make one fighter do all of that and do it well.
It's the other way around, the F-35 was supposed to not only replace the F-16, but also the A-10... and the F/A-18, and probably a couple other aircraft types in other NATO countries.
I'm unsure if this is more your perceptions, the places that you've worked or a combination.
Why do you phrase it as "public accountability ritual"? I'm sensing my definition for accountability is different than yours. I typically think of my comment at a standup as (small) opportunity to answer "what have you been working on?" once instead of if every member came by and asked in a friendly manner. I wouldn't be bothered by them asking individually, and it saves me repeating the answer.
I've never heard the phrase "isn't living up to expectations" related to stand ups. Do you (or places you've worked) normally have those related? I'm not sure I understand.
Why do you think it's "in front of your team" as opposed to "with your team"?
I, and other people I've worked with, have never been bothered by saying "still working on the same hard task" for _weeks_. If anything, I usually hear encouraging comments; "it sucks that the task is so difficult", "anything I can do to help you out?", "I'm surprised you haven't gone crazy from that", etc.
The places I've worked at aren't even great at agile, but I've never seen the process directed towards some of the things you're saying.
I had a manager who would ask "is that all you're working on?" if you mentioned working on less than 3-4 unique tasks.
This incentivized breaking everything up into tiny tasks and getting things out the door instead of getting the right things done. It was not a good workplace.
So, first, let me say that, yes, that sounds like a bad workplace.
Second, just to point out (I'm sure you realize, but just in the spirit of the parent comment), no agile workplace cares about the load of tasks dev has. Are they busy doing valuable work? If not, is there valuable work they could be doing? That's it. If yes to the first, no problem. If no to the first, and yes to the second, no problem, "hey, I've got something you can have a look at". If no to both, no problem, it's on product and management to work on getting some new work items.
I agree that a True Agile workplace would not care about making sure that everyone looks busy. So far 2 for 3 of the scrums I've been involved with have degenerated into micromanagement and pointed questions if there wasn't constant process, even if that came at the cost of overall velocity.
Maybe just bad luck and bad workplaces, but I am increasing skeptical that there are any true 'Agile' workplaces.
I don't think there's a clear definition of what a 'true agile workplace' is.
That said, agile is, if anything, a culture. It's why it started with a manifesto, and it's why retrospectives are the only meeting that is spelled out in it; the retros aren't to try and determine what parts of a particular process you're not adhering to, but what isn't working (process or otherwise), so that you can change it (i.e., "At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly").
There are plenty of workplaces that have that culture, even if the processes are all over the place. Of the last four workplaces that called themselves agile that I've worked in, three of them had that culture, and I and my teams got amazing work done in them (in fact, my reason for leaving at least one of them was -directly- due to the hiring of a micromanager and the ousting of someone who protected the teams from upper management). The fourth was an old school enterprise company you've almost assuredly heard of, with high employee retention, a culture of top down management and decision by committee, and, surprise surprise, their injection of agile processes did nothing to make them actually deliver software any faster, nor did it lead to any better results.
Oh, strange. I'm also on Firefox (84 on Ubuntu, 85 on Arch and Nix) and works fine here. Hunch says it can have something to do with how I redirect port 80 to the port the application is running, something like "iptables -A PREROUTING -t nat -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-port 3825"
