Is getting a subscription to Jane's Defense worth the 500 bucks you gotta dish out?
Maybe 40 years ago.
>>30955207
Why do you say that?
>>30955185
Well, emotionally: Yes. Jane's is fucking awesome if you wanna have your finger at the pulse of time
But then again: Jane's was never meant for John Doe but defense professionals, so there's tons of boring ass bullshit included thats only interesting if you're a divisional S4
>>30955227
You can find more accurate information for free on forums and blogs these days. Such as airbase.ru or airforce.ru.
>>30955329
>tfw my local bumfuck public library branch has a subscription
pretty sick desu senpai, i'm way too jew for one myself.
>>30955338
My company has one too (I'm an editor for a gun magazine) thats why I know there's lots of boring bullshit included.
But at the end of the day, I love to read the stuff.
>>30955185
That's a subscription for professional users, get the free copy at the nearest central library dumbass.
Hell if you have a university with a half-decent political science department nearby the library there is probably electronically subscribed. Get a library card and go nuts.
>>30955355
yeah, literally anything to do with cybersecurity or logistics make my eyebals curl up from boredom.
sure, if you're ok with paying for 'intelligence reports' gathered through wikipedia and mainstream media
>>30955331
You had me going for a sec,
>>30955329
I figured, a damn book will run you a thousand right there. But I've had a passion for this stuff for a while now so I figured I'd get my fill of it even if it isn't on the same level a respectable contractor would
>>30955366
This, I'm a uni student and we get Jane's through the uni's ProQuest (I think) subscription.
We can read the Jane's defence weekly all online and I think we get a hardcopy as well but I've never bothered tracking it down. Some of the publications e.g. the annual roundups of missiles, etc. we have subscriptions for but they're paper copy only, no online.