|
Nah, it's eu plates. I cross referenced the format with the Wikipedia page on European licence plates. It's not necessarily German eu plates but those looked the closest.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Dahir Insaat is back. This time they are using their drone missile trucks on convoys of trucks with German EU plates. God my favorite is the carrier attack, those missiles look like they aren’t even over the horizon on that one, just some weird submarine and boat (w/ a bunch of US dual 5/38) launching drone missile at targets that can visibly see them. The first two are really dumb but at least plausible in some twisted Clancy-esque “we don’t know how any of this works” fashion. The last one is just full on crazy. Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Dec 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Mazz posted:God my favorite is the carrier attack, those missiles look like they aren’t even over the horizon on that one, just some weird submarine and boat (w/ a bunch of US dual 5/38) launching drone missile at targets that can visibly see them. “Captain there’s a unknown submarine and surface ship dead ahead” “Recall all air cover and prepare for parade inspection”
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
Mazz posted:God my favorite is the carrier attack, those missiles look like they aren’t even over the horizon on that one, just some weird submarine and boat (w/ a bunch of US dual 5/38) launching drone missile at targets that can visibly see them. Also the last one features a number of King George V class battleships
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
"Awesome job with the weapon design! So all we need is perfect intel about enemy routes and dispositions, the enemy to be travelling nut-to-butt close to each other, a stable firing platform the enemy doesn't know about, and the enemy to have absolutely no countermeasures while still being in range of a 7cm diameter rocket. Brilliant!" "Sir, shall we have the missiles stop dead in their tracks partway and wait for the enemy to come to them, rather than just firing the missiles directly at the targets?" "Goddamnit you're a genius Insaat! Proceed. Make sure the missiles accelerate to altitude, then stop. Then accelerate again!" "Sir, what if there was a way to make the missiles stop yet again, thereby requiring not two but three entirely distinct propulsion stages?" "Insaat I like your style. Show me a render and the research grant is yours!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
Reminds me a little of ALARM, except that had a reason to loiter at height.Wikipedia posted:ALARM is a fire-and-forget system, with an added loiter capability. In loiter mode, ALARM will, when launched, climb to an altitude of 13 km. If the target radar shuts down, the missile will deploy a parachute and descend slowly until the radar lights up. The missile will then fire a secondary motor to attack the target.[12]
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
large hands posted:Reminds me a little of ALARM, except that had a reason to loiter at height. Not to mention using a parachute instead of quadrotors
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
Boeing CEO stepping down in the wake of 737 MAX killing almost 400 people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Boeing CEO stepping down in the wake of 737 MAX killing almost 400 people. Well it's good to see timely reactions from such a large company.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
You really get the impression that they are taking this thing seriously
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 16:01
|
|
aphid_licker posted:You really get the impression that they are taking this thing seriously ~400 lives wouldn't have mattered if stock prices would have gotten turned around quickly enough.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Boeing CEO stepping down in the wake of 737 MAX killing almost 400 people. Well that and the software failure in the Starliner... After the 737 MAX issues which did indeed kill a lot of people, the KC-46 debacle and then the VERY public failure to reach ISS with the Starliner, its not like they had much of a choice. BTW now you the people get to pay for Boeing to attempt another Starliner launch and attempt to dock with the ISS. Unless NASA decides NAH, they don't need to do it because all that federal funding...
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
That Works posted:~400 lives wouldn't have mattered if stock prices would have gotten turned around quickly enough. I think the worst thing is that Boeing specifically trained military pilots of aircraft that have this feature specifically about said feature, how it works, how to turn it off etc...
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:I think the worst thing is that Boeing specifically trained military pilots of aircraft that have this feature specifically about said feature, how it works, how to turn it off etc... Why would the P-8 have MCAS? It’s a NG, not a max.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
USAF UH-1N replacement named "Grey Wolf." Apparently the USAF naming committee is run by 13 year old boys.  https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/12/19/its-official-air-forces-huey-replacement-named-grey-wolf.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:USAF UH-1N replacement named "Grey Wolf." Maybe because farmers like taking pot shots at grey wolves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:I think the worst thing is that Boeing specifically trained military pilots of aircraft that have this feature specifically about said feature, how it works, how to turn it off etc... again, stock prices. They declared that the MAX was a minor revision that didn't need additional training because then airlines wouldn't have to take pilots offline to retrain them, which in turn means that they would be more likely to buy the airplane, which in turn means betters stock prices. Aversion to additional training because it's going to cut down on the number of hours per year you have a single pilot in the air is less of a thing in the military than it is in the commercial sector. Which isn't to excuse it or say it makes it right, just to shine some light on the incentive that lead to this particular outcome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
The decision not to have additional training was one borne out of customer demand. Southwest in particular. Boeing looked at a clean sheet design but the customers wanted to keep the type certificate. Boeing tried to do that, and with better software engineering probably would have succeeded. Stock prices is sorta tautological as an explanation. Like, yes, Boeing is trying to make money. Producing the kind of airplane that airlines want to buy, instead of the kind of plane they don't want to buy, does make money. On the other hand having your plane get grounded doesn't make money. Oops. Maybe they should have said no. I don't know. I think a more useful place to look would be the regulatory environment, in the sense that you might actually prevent this sort of thing from happening again. Businesses always try to make money, and the intent of the regulatory state is to get them to make money in ways that are useful rather than harmful. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Dec 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
That Works posted:~400 lives wouldn't have mattered if stock prices would have gotten turned around quickly enough. it’s this. he’s stepping down because the safety agencies are finally pretending to do their jobs so they can’t get away with a lovely patch job anymore, and the stock finally tanked a little.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
Pretty cool capability as long as you can find/fix the cruise missile(s) https://twitter.com/oriana0214/status/1209167677509509120?s=21
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
They were also a sliiiggtly worse choice than the equivalent Airbus but no new training tipped it to the MAX's favor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Why would the P-8 have MCAS? It’s a NG, not a max. KC-46 is not the P-8. The P-8 doesn't have MCAS (that I am aware of), as it is a dash 800ERX. EvilMerlin fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Dec 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Pretty cool capability as long as you can find/fix the cruise missile(s) They are already starting to test a longer range version of the AGR-20A, the -20B which will increase its range by a factor of 10.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The decision not to have additional training was one borne out of customer demand. Southwest in particular. Boeing looked at a clean sheet design but the customers wanted to keep the type certificate. Boeing tried to do that, and with better software engineering probably would have succeeded. I mean, you aren't wrong but businesses can make money without having things be a race to the bottom. I agree it's awful that the regulators effectively gave power to Boeing check themselves off as OK if Ok, but Boeing did say things were OK, and they weren't. Similarly a customer saying "we don't want to have to do extra training" doesn't mean that when it goes wrong it's all the customer's fault. What does Southwest know about building safe aircraft? That's why they don't build their own planes. It's Boeing's job - especially with their added powers - to decide if something would be safe to sell. Not only their job, I agree - see above about regulators passing the power to Boeing due to insufficient funding - but there is such a thing as shared responsibility. You might as well say "the info was out there if passengers wanted to choose an airline flying Airbus instead", which is true, and a few now are doing I suppose, but I don't think the buck stops with them, if their view is "Yeah I wanted the best price but I trusted the airline to fly safe planes" Just like Southwest would say "Yeah we wanted to reduce training but we trusted Boeing to supply us safe planes and documentation". Boeing could say "I trusted the government to stop our engineers from designing an unsafe process/system" but A) they accepted the self-check responsibility voluntarily B) they promised something that they didn't deliver (a plane that wouldn't need too much extra training to be safely operated - spoiler: it did) and C) they thought there was a need for training on the system as shown by the military implementation. I understand where you're coming from saying that it's tautology that a private business tried to make money, because that's what private businesses are for. But they are being called out because people are saying "they shouldn't have a culture that jeopardises safety to that degree for profit", and saying "well that's the culture" misses the whole people-wanting-it-to-change part
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
I agree Boeing absolutely does not get to blame the regulators for handing them the keys, not one bit, and they do need a big culture change. I don't see how that happens without the FAA, so when you ask "well how do we fix this" the answer is going to involve the FAA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
100% agree the FAA needs to be involved I'd like to see what they will change in light of this, and Boeing who needs to review how it makes decisions in-house day-to-day beyond the FAA's scope
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
I agree that the FAA needs to be involved, but sometimes it’s not easily doable. In the case of certain newer technology advances, the FAA has no inspectors that actually understand new technologies. Beechcraft had to basically walk the FAA through the certification process of the Starship, which at the time was one of the only composite carbon fiber aircraft, since virtually no one in the FAA understood composites. I am guessing that flight control design is much more mature now than composite aircraft were in the 80s, but it might be really difficult to not have folks with a history at Boeing involved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
That Works posted:~400 lives wouldn't have mattered if stock prices would have gotten turned around quickly enough. I'm not sure what your complaint is. The regulatory regime is such that the stock price is very heavily affected by 400 people dying. And if Muilenberg had managed to fix the issue faster and clear everything with regulators then he would deserve to keep the job. What you are saying, essentially, is that if we didn't have regulators then Boeing would behave as if it was not regulated. Which is why we have regulators.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
Debris walking with Chinese characteristics.  
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Debris walking with Chinese characteristics. Whats happening here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I agree Boeing absolutely does not get to blame the regulators for handing them the keys, not one bit, and they do need a big culture change. I don't see how that happens without the FAA, so when you ask "well how do we fix this" the answer is going to involve the FAA. The culture just needs to revert to what it was 20 years ago (or earlier), when engineers made engineering decisions and managers made management decisions. One of the main issues is the MBAs started making engineering decisions without understanding the ramifications.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Whats happening here? I would assume a FOD walk?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:I'm not sure what your complaint is. The regulatory regime is such that the stock price is very heavily affected by 400 people dying. And if Muilenberg had managed to fix the issue faster and clear everything with regulators then he would deserve to keep the job. What you are saying, essentially, is that if we didn't have regulators then Boeing would behave as if it was not regulated. Which is why we have regulators. After the Lion Air crash, Boeing stock took two whole days to rebound. The Ethiopian Airlines crash occurred over a weekend, so Monday Boeing stock continued a slide that started Friday, before the crash. This time it took a couple of weeks to get back to pre-EAL crash levels. The second bottom was higher than the first, and the drop was less significant. The second crash actually did LESS damage to the stock price. Boeing's all-time high stock price was BETWEEN the crashes, in Feb 2019. Shooting Blanks posted:The culture just needs to revert to what it was 20 years ago (or earlier), when engineers made engineering decisions and managers made management decisions. One of the main issues is the MBAs started making engineering decisions without understanding the ramifications. Yeah, but you're talking about an era where the stock was valued under $10, vs today's $300+.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
E: Whoops
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Godholio posted:After the Lion Air crash, Boeing stock took two whole days to rebound. The Ethiopian Airlines crash occurred over a weekend, so Monday Boeing stock continued a slide that started Friday, before the crash. This time it took a couple of weeks to get back to pre-EAL crash levels. The second bottom was higher than the first, and the drop was less significant. The second crash actually did LESS damage to the stock price. Boeing's all-time high stock price was BETWEEN the crashes, in Feb 2019. You have to compare the stock's performance to the market as a whole. Boeing has stayed basically flat while the market overall has grown considerably. Investors and the board understand that the company is doing badly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
people still believe that stock price is caused by company performance so in the mass hallucination that is the stock market stock price correlates to company performance, using the example of Pelton in this essay I will
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:You have to compare the stock's performance to the market as a whole. Boeing has stayed basically flat while the market overall has grown considerably. Investors and the board understand that the company is doing badly. When you say "the market as a whole" what do you actually mean? Something like the Dow isn't the fairest comparison. But yeah, performance has been rather flat. Which, considering we're looking at an airplane manufacturer that is making airplanes that intentionally directly into the ground at high speed, while almost all its other products are drying up, seems like an underreaction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 01:11
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:You have to compare the stock's performance to the market as a whole. Boeing has stayed basically flat while the market overall has grown considerably. Investors and the board understand that the company is doing badly. So you're saying that ~400 lives wouldn't have mattered if stock prices would have gotten turned around quickly enough.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
That Works posted:So you're saying that ~400 lives wouldn't have mattered if stock prices would have gotten turned around quickly enough. You're getting it backwards. I'm saying that for stock prices to have turned around that fast, 400 lives would have had to be irrelevant. As we have seen from the fact that the MAX is still grounded, this is obviously not the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
Godholio posted:When you say "the market as a whole" what do you actually mean? Something like the Dow isn't the fairest comparison. But yeah, performance has been rather flat. Which, considering we're looking at an airplane manufacturer that is making airplanes that intentionally directly into the ground at high speed, while almost all its other products are drying up, seems like an underreaction. Something like the S&P 500. It is a fairly good instrument for the state of the economy as a whole. I don't really know what the point of the Dow is. It's a ridiculous index. It's not an underreaction because Boeing still has a massive order book, the plane is obviously fixable, and aviation is growing very fast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 01:19
|
|