|
Aha ha ha, may have been party to a crazily-obscure Xilinx bug that showed up at Cisco then 6 mos later at Huawei.
Remulak fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Feb 14, 2020 |
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
razak posted:Given what happened to Nortel (beyond being run by crooks) you would think they would be more mindful. The government thought it would be a swell idea to move the goddamn Department of National Defense into the old Nortel HQ and found the place was absolutely riddled with surveillance devices, probably Huawei’s. That’s one of the main reasons I hate their crooked loving company. Perhaps Nortel could have righted the ship if they didn’t have all their IP and business plans stolen. Who knows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
priznat posted:I so want to see Telus get hosed by the government banning the use of Huawei equipment but lol no way that’ll happen. I think the BEST case is the government saying no new equipment but you can keep what you got which will be a completely halfassed solution and still a huge security hole. The crisis of democracy is not just in the US.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 03:28
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:It's totally fair to be skeptical of this administration's claims that Chinese exporters are up to something wily, but the Huawei concerns do seem to genuinely come from the US intelligence community rather than trade warriors. They also predate this administration by a long drat time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 06:50
|
|
|
Yeah the Nortel and Cisco hacking and theft by Huawei was in the early 00s and possibly started even earlier. It’s pretty much how they got their leg up on their technology. They had access at the CEO level in Nortel’s case in both login credentials and most likely listening devices in his office. And I doubt they have changed how they operate, stealing whatever they can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 07:08
|
|
|
Aren't there still detectable traces of stolen code in a lot of their products to this day?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 07:40
|
|
|
Fearless posted:Aren't there still detectable traces of stolen code in a lot of their products to this day? Yeah in order to attempt to clear their name in the Cisco dispute Huawei provided code for comparison, they seemed to think changing some variable names and headers would prove their innocence but analyzing the spacing pattern and other factors it was decided by a neutral party that it was almost certainly originally Cisco code. They even put up a blog post on it in 2012 when Huawei tried again proclaiming their innocence. https://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-correcting-the-record
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 08:06
|
|
|
The other problem with Huawei is that there's very little consistency across device codebases, so you'll see a vuln fixed in one device, then 6mo later its replacement comes out and HERE COMES JOHNNY the new thing is vulnerable. It's been infuriating for a number of institutions I know, and noone I know has used them more than once for anything more sophisticated than edge switching.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 10:57
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:That's silly, they absolutely get funded. I work on them all the time. It's just that they have much less publicity, and eight or nine figure price tags rather than twelve. CarForumPoster posted:The program ended up with a CPI and SPI of 1.0X and a first flight date within 2 weeks of the 5 year old baseline. You guys are right of course. I had just spent three hours reading about late 70s/early 80s foibles, the Packard Report, Goldwater-Nichols and LCS right before that, which probably affected my outlook.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 13:43
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I don't think the story of the F-16 is one of failure. We got the development money back on that in value. Hell the US is still making billions off of the F-16 sales to other nations. Taiwan is getting 66 more F-16s for 8 billion bucks (finalized deal in August) Morocco finalized 3.8 billion of F-16s last March. Bulgaria is getting 1.6 billion worth of F-16s (8 of the Block 70) Indonesia is buying 32 more (Block 70's) even with the Su-35 order... around 5 billion. So in 2019 alone we are talking about nearly 19 billion dollars...
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 15:59
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Hell the US is still making billions off of the F-16 sales to other nations. yeah i think there's an easy argument for saying the F-16 has become the most successful multi-role fighter ever, which is especially ironic given its "lightweight day-only" design origins. they've built nearly 5000 (!) of them, 3000 of which are still flying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
Sure, but that's more a testament to the design and it's ability to be upgraded than what it was spec'd out for. I mean, gently caress, the P-51 was originally a ground attack aircraft. Great fighter, but it didn't have much to do with the original goals of the project.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
I also suspect it's one of those things where the tooling is there, it's a well known design, and it's good enough for pretty much anything from air to air to ground support. It's not that it's an amazing design, it's a well understood design that you can get support for anywhere on the globe and that has low-ish production costs due to the volume it's made in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Sure, but that's more a testament to the design and it's ability to be upgraded than what it was spec'd out for. I mean, gently caress, the P-51 was originally a ground attack aircraft. Great fighter, but it didn't have much to do with the original goals of the project. The P-51 was never designed to be a ground attack aircraft, it as relegated to that role because it had terrible high altitude performance before they put a Rolls Royce engine in it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
Good article on the current state of the B-1B, and how the end of its life is fast approaching: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32213/b-1b-loses-low-level-mission-annual-flight-hours-capped-heres-how-it-got-to-this-point It was never meant to be an everyday bomber that would be in service for 40 years, and the airframe and its components were never designed to take off and land thousands of times, which gives it high (and rising) maintenance costs and low (and falling) readiness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I also suspect it's one of those things where the tooling is there, it's a well known design, and it's good enough for pretty much anything from air to air to ground support. It's not that it's an amazing design, it's a well understood design that you can get support for anywhere on the globe and that has low-ish production costs due to the volume it's made in. Not just low-ish, but almost entirely predictable production and maintenance costs. A lot of governments can afford to pony up a few billion for a small air force, but they're terrified of "a few billion" turning into "twenty billion." As an example, Slovakia signed an $800m contract for a small number of F-16s with a firm fixed price - that simply isn't possible with many other planes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
I think the key is designed for purpose and adapted (F-4) versus designed for multi-use (F-111). Seems like there are better results when adapting an excellent airframe after the fact instead of trying to compromise for individual roles on initial design.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:I think the key is designed for purpose and adapted (F-4) versus designed for multi-use (F-111). Seems like there are better results when adapting an excellent airframe after the fact instead of trying to compromise for individual roles on initial design. Seems a common trope throughout airframe design. Make a good rear end plane and it can be whatever you want it to be. Try to make the best plane for a role and it'll be able to do it for like a decade max *stares at F35-B*
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Sure, but that's more a testament to the design and it's ability to be upgraded than what it was spec'd out for. I mean, gently caress, the P-51 was originally a ground attack aircraft. Great fighter, but it didn't have much to do with the original goals of the project.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
The P-51 was weird in that the British wanted a fighter, but settled for using the P-51 as a medium-low altitude fighter-bomber with powerplant improvements. Then the USAAF used further refinements of the RAF improvements to make it a long-range medium-high altitude fighter. Late war, the US used the fighter P-51s as attackers, because why not? Meanwhile, the A-36 existed as the bespoke US attacker variant but was retired before the end of the war. And after the war, it was back to attacker duty under the F-51 designation as jet aviation rolled out. A multi-role plane whose role varied depending on who was operating it and when.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:I think the key is designed for purpose and adapted (F-4) versus designed for multi-use (F-111). Seems like there are better results when adapting an excellent airframe after the fact instead of trying to compromise for individual roles on initial design. Yeah, while I can think of good multi-use airframes that started off that way, they are very much the exception to the rule.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
brains posted:they've built nearly 5000 (!) of them, 3000 of which are still flying. Now I wonder if any billionaires have tried to buy a used F-16
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Now I wonder if any billionaires have tried to buy a used F-16 They could always buy an F/A-18A with a nice pedigree: https://sites.ualberta.ca/~nmartin/newhome/TheonlyF.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Now I wonder if any billionaires have tried to buy a used F-16 Legit surprised Tom Cruise doesn't have one
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:They could always buy an F/A-18A with a nice pedigree: https://sites.ualberta.ca/~nmartin/newhome/TheonlyF.html This returns a 403 Forbidden for me
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:This returns a 403 Forbidden for me Huh, interesting. It's a private firm offering a former Blue Angel and #131 F/A-18A for $1.5m as-is or $9m assembled, painted to buyer's desires, with two zero hour F404 engines and one spare. Do a Google search for private F/A-18, no quotes. Should be the first result.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Huh, interesting. It's a private firm offering a former Blue Angel and #131 F/A-18A for $1.5m as-is or $9m assembled, painted to buyer's desires, with two zero hour F404 engines and one spare. Thats a hell of a risky gamble as the Government isn't even sure it can be legally owned by civilians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Thats a hell of a risky gamble as the Government isn't even sure it can be legally owned by civilians. If you're the kind of person that can drop $9m on a gimmick then I'm pretty sure you don't have to worry about the government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Good article on the current state of the B-1B, and how the end of its life is fast approaching: Without paint it looks very Soviet. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
Just roll it under the NFA Form 4 guidelines for a "Destructive Device," make the buyer pay the fee, and call it a day. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Without paint it looks very Soviet. that looks loving cool
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
You can get a harrier with enough Pepsi Points
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Without paint it looks very Soviet. Many things look very Soviet without paint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 22:46
|
|
|
McNally posted:The P-51 was never designed to be a ground attack aircraft, it as relegated to that role because it had terrible high altitude performance before they put a Rolls Royce engine in it. The P-38, as wonderful a machine as it was when it finally got decent engines, was never gonna cut it in Europe. Its roll rate at high speed was not sufficient for dogfights with German fighters, and the British tried to tell the Americans this when they got the P-39 and did some testing on it. The P-40 is a great case study for figuring out what it means for a war machine to be "good." The P-41 was an amazing aircraft for the USAF in the Pacific. It did everything you would want in a land-based fighter in the Pacific theater and kicked Japanese rear end up and down 5,000 miles. It had an abysmal record at bomber escort in Europe, which was the only real mission before 1944, despite being one of the few fighters with enough range. The British couldn't get rid of them fast enough. But I'm not disagreeing with you it did have terrible high altitude performance without turbocharged engines. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Feb 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
I think you might be conflating the p38 and p51
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
I can't remember numbers apparently Wait so the P-51 also had awful high altitude characteristics?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 01:08
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I can't remember numbers apparently The early Allison (iirc) engines didn't do well at high altitude so the early versions were used for ground attack stuff primarily. Once they used the Rolls Royce Merlins they changed quite a bit.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
yeah the p51 has the cool story about packard telling rolls-royce their plans were too imprecise and couldn't be used for mass production.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 02:49
|
|
|
Also the P-51 might not have been the most optimized fighter for European air combat but it had range and it could make the escort distance at an important stage in the air war, and a so-so fighter escort is better than no escort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
bewbies posted:I think you might be conflating the p38 and p51 I was completely loving baffled. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 08:33
|
|