The F-35 tells everything that's broken in the Pentagon

https://english.cdn.zeenews.com/sites/default/files/2016/09/17/529686-f-35fighterjets.jpg


https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/542412-the-f-35-tells-everything-thats-broken-in-the-pentagon

By Sean McFate, opinion contributor — 03/11/21 01:00 PM EST

It’s official: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a “rathole” of taxpayer money, something defense experts already knew — at least those without dubious ties to the military industrial blob. Now the House Armed Services Committee chairman has joined the ranks of the outraged, saying that when he thinks about the F-35, he thinks about “failure on a massive freaking scale.”

The F-35 is an allegory for everything that’s broken in our Department of Defense, which receives more money than the rest of the federal interagency, combined. In fact, we spend more on our armed forces than the next 10 biggest militaries in the world, combined. What are we getting for our tax dollars? Unfortunately, the F-35.

Budgets are moral documents because they do not lie. The F-35 is the most expensive weapon in history, with a projected lifetime cost of $1.7 trillion. That’s more than Russia’s GDP, all spent on a single-seat plane. In fact, if this aircraft were a country, its GDP would rank 11th in the world, ahead of Saudi Arabia. Buying one costs around $110 million a copy, nearly double the price of a Boeing 737-600 airliner. F-35s are also expensive to fly. Each hour in the air costs $44,000, more than twice the cost of the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Super Hornet.


The irrationality of the F-35 goes beyond the price tag — the plane is superfluous. It was devised as a flying Swiss Army knife that could meet the needs of the Air Force, Navy, Marines and Army. Instead, it proves the adage that a camel is a horse designed by committee. It is true that the F-35 can engage in dogfights, drop bombs and spy — just not well. Older aircraft remain better than F-35s at all these tasks. Dedicated bombers can fly farther with larger payloads. The A-10 Thunderbolt, an aircraft introduced in 1977, is better at ground support missions.

Astonishingly, the F-35 cannot dogfight, the crux of any fighter jet. According to test pilots, the F-35 is “substantially inferior” to the 40-year-old F-15 fighter jet in mock air battles. The F-35 could not turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane or dodge enemy gunfire. Similarly, the F-35 struggled to get a clean shot at a 1980s-vintage F-16. The older aircraft easily maneuvered behind the F-35 for a clear shot, even sneaking up on the “stealth” jet. Despite the F-35s vaunted abilities, it was blown out of the sky in multiple tests.

Those who live by technology die by it too. Unsurprisingly, the F-35’s 8 million lines of code are buggy, as are the 24 million lines running the aircraft’s maintenance and logistics software on the ground. Sometimes pilots have to press Ctrl+Alt+Delete while in flight to reboot the multimillion-dollar radar. The F-35 computer code, government auditors say, is “as complicated as anything on earth.” What can be coded can also be hacked, another vulnerability for the F-35.

Hacked or not, buggy computer code grounds aircraft, as does the perpetual shortage of spare parts and critical design flaws that can, for example, melt the plane in flight. Currently, the F-35 fleet is receiving a projected $16 billion software upgrade and other components that are already two years behind schedule and $1.5 billion over budget. The plane’s builder, Lockheed Martin, claims that it could reduce problems — but only if it’s awarded an exclusive maintenance contract. Eisenhower would be spinning in his grave. Or, as a former Pentagon chief weapons buyer put it, the F-35 is “acquisitions malpractice.”   

continued:

As a war machine, the F-35 is already obsolete junk. The measure of any weapon’s value is its utility. The United States has been at war continuously since Sept. 11, 2001, yet the F-35 has flown zero combat missions. Zero. When I was a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne, we would say: “That dog don’t hunt.” Perhaps sensitive to the F-35’s disgraceful war record, in 2018 the Pentagon sent a few on missions in Afghanistan and Iraq to notch up combat cred. Never mind that their help comes 15 years too late; the super-expensive F-35 was not designed to take out a weapons cache or a terrorist on a moped. Also, as any grunt will tell you, it’s not “combat” if the enemy can’t shoot back. If engine failure is the biggest threat to survival, then the F-35 might as well be flying over Kansas. Nor is this super-weapon deterring Russian, Chinese or Iranian expansionism.

The F-35 is a hanger queen. As of January, the F-35 was still struggling to meet its goal mission-capable rate, which is the percentage of aircraft that can meet at least one assigned mission. Only 69 percent met the threshold, well short of the military’s longstanding 80 percent goal. For some reason, Congress wants to buy hundreds more, and make our allies do the same. Not every ally is happy about it.

    Overnight Defense: Tucker Carlson comments cause military rage |...
    OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Graham, Sullivan signal possible support for...

Given all the headaches, the Air Force is quietly considering alternatives to the $1.7 trillion flying lemon. But it’s time to think bigger. There has not been a strategic dogfight since the Korean War, so why are more fighter jets needed — especially manned ones? We already possess the best Air Force — and military — in the world. We have enjoyed combat overmatch against all our enemies for 70 years, yet we have not won a major war since 1945. If we are honest, something is wrong with our strategic IQ, and it’s not something the F-35 can fix.

We do not need more exquisite weapon systems, such as the F-35, that are useless in modern war and cost the GDP of large nations. Instead, we need other things: a higher strategic IQ, savvier diplomacy, and the ability to fight wars “beneath the threshold of war.” Today, some of the best weapons do not fire bullets, so let’s invest there. For example, we should achieve “information overmatch” against disinformation superpowers like Russia, Iran and China. This is not a military mission alone, and we need to fund other departments that are crucial to maintaining American leadership abroad. Cutting the F-35 would be a good start. 

Sean McFate is the author of five books, including “The New Rules of War: How America Can Win — Against Russia, China, and Other Threats” (2019). He is a professor at Georgetown University and an adviser to Oxford University’s Centre for Technology and Global Affairs. He served in the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. Follow him on Twitter @seanmcfate.

I doubt that it's quite that bad.
Israel has used them in combat in Syria.   :-/

Why are we buying them? We can't afford a lemon like that. We should cancel the order before we go completely broke

Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 9:12am:

Why are we buying them? We can't afford a lemon like that. We should cancel the order before we go completely broke

Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  McFate is a true ground pounder with a ground pounder's ideas on what constitutes "warfare".  He is dismissive of the F-35's abilities which he obviously doesn't understand.  It is stealthy - "stealthy" means it is invisible to radar and to a lesser extent, infra-red tracking systems.  It is part of an integrated systems approach to warfare - which means it is part of a system which is combined to create a package of aircraft that can outmanoeuvre enemy aircraft strategically.  It has advanced EO (Electro-Optics) system which effectively allows the pilot to "see through" the aircraft and which automatically spots any missile launches against it.  It has an advanced mission management system which allows it to integrate closely and automatically with AEW&C aircraft.   

Basically it is a generation ahead of any aircraft presently flying, including the F-22.  The days that fighter aircraft take on one another, individually died at the end of WWI and was effectively killed in WWII.  Today, fighters fight as a unit, not single planes.   This ability has all come at a cost.  Fighters are the top of the line aircraft and so cost more than bombers and CAS aircraft.   

The reason why we, Australia, is buying these aircraft is because there isn't anything out there that even comes close to the F-35 in capability. No Russian, no Chinese, no British, no Japanese, nothing.  RAAF has long attempted to structure itself as a leading air force in our region.  We purchased the F-86/CA-27, the Mirage IIIO, the F-111 and the F/A-18 because they were better than what anybody else had, in the region.  The F-35 continues that trend.

Now, Bobby, why isn't this in the Defence Forum?  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 10:26am:

Now, Bobby, why isn't this in the Defence Forum?  ::) ::)

Because not only me but other posters have complained
that you delete on topic posts at your MRB.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 10:26am:

It is stealthy - "stealthy" means it is invisible to radar and to a lesser extent, infra-red tracking systems.

perhaps not.

"“Invisible”? Apparently Not – F-35 Stealth Fighter Tracked by Website in Real Time"

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/f-35-stealth-fighter-plane.html

"Experimental German radar 'tracked two U.S. F-35 stealth jet for 100 MILES' after lying in wait on a pony farm to catch them flying home from airshow"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7522413/German-radar-tracked-two-U-S-F-35-stealth-jet-100-MILES-hiding-pony-farm.html

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 3:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 10:26am: It is stealthy - "stealthy" means it is invisible to radar and to a lesser extent, infra-red tracking systems. perhaps not. "“Invisible”? Apparently Not – F-35 Stealth Fighter Tracked by Website in Real Time" https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/f-35-stealth-fighter-plane.html "Experimental German radar 'tracked two U.S. F-35 stealth jet for 100 MILES' after lying in wait on a pony farm to catch them flying home from airshow" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7522413/German-radar-tracked-two-U-S-F-35-stealth-jet-100-MILES-hiding-pony-farm.html

So - not so stealthy as they say.  ;)

If the Americans complain about them, and there's been a few, why wouldn't we suffer from the F35's shortcomings? The massive cost of these planes will escalate over time, like everything else that goes over budget

They've been "pushed" onto allies of the US, if the OP is correct. There'd be only one reason for that, getting the allies to share in the mega billions of dollars of development of the F35. We are suckers, these planes will lie idle in hangers for long periods, just because the NWO think we should have them. They cost a mint to fly them for just one hour, A$50,000. How many are we getting, 70 or so

Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:17pm:

If the Americans complain about them, and there's been a few, why wouldn't we suffer from the F35's shortcomings? The massive cost of these planes will escalate over time, like everything else that goes over budget They've been "pushed" onto allies of the US, if the OP is correct. There'd be only one reason for that, getting the allies to share in the mega billions of dollars of development of the F35. We are suckers, these planes will lie idle in hangers for long periods, just because the NWO think we should have them. They cost a mint to fly them for just one hour, A$50,000. How many are we getting, 70 or so

Also - the F111s had a much greater range.
We need range with such a large country.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 1:19pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 10:26am: Now, Bobby, why isn't this in the Defence Forum?  ::) ::) Because not only me but other posters have complained that you delete on topic posts at your MRB.

The rules are there, Bobby.  If you cannot accept them, that is your look out.  Creating threads in a forum which is not where defence should be discussed is childish, as childish as your posting of Racist cartoons...  ::) ::)

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 3:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 10:26am: It is stealthy - "stealthy" means it is invisible to radar and to a lesser extent, infra-red tracking systems. perhaps not. "“Invisible”? Apparently Not – F-35 Stealth Fighter Tracked by Website in Real Time" https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/f-35-stealth-fighter-plane.html "Experimental German radar 'tracked two U.S. F-35 stealth jet for 100 MILES' after lying in wait on a pony farm to catch them flying home from airshow" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7522413/German-radar-tracked-two-U-S-F-35-stealth-jet-100-MILES-hiding-pony-farm.html

The F-35s had their transponders switched on, Lee.  Why do you think that was?  Perhaps because ATC had to track where they were, whereas in wartime, they'd turn it off, to confuse the enemy as to where their location was.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 1:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 10:26am: Now, Bobby, why isn't this in the Defence Forum?  ::) ::) Because not only me but other posters have complained that you delete on topic posts at your MRB. The rules are there, Bobby.  If you cannot accept them, that is your look out.  Creating threads in a forum which is not where defence should be discussed is childish, as childish as your posting of Racist cartoons...  ::) ::)

Not as childish as deleting on topic posts
because you don't like them.

Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:17pm:

If the Americans complain about them, and there's been a few, why wouldn't we suffer from the F35's shortcomings? The massive cost of these planes will escalate over time, like everything else that goes over budget They've been "pushed" onto allies of the US, if the OP is correct. There'd be only one reason for that, getting the allies to share in the mega billions of dollars of development of the F35. We are suckers, these planes will lie idle in hangers for long periods, just because the NWO think we should have them. They cost a mint to fly them for just one hour, A$50,000. How many are we getting, 70 or so

And here is something I challenge all critics of the F-35 programme with. "What alternatives are there, which are as effective and as advanced as the F-35 which are available to the RAAF?"  Well, here's a chance to hear your suggestions.  There is nothing as developed and as available as the F-35 programme.  The only way to take part in it is either hand over oodles and oodles of cash or hand over a lot less and be a part of the construction programme.   The Russian Su57 is not as advanced.  The Chinese J-20 fighter is not as advanced. The BAe Tempest is no where ready to fly.  Those are the only three stealth fighters available.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:28pm:

lee wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 3:35pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 10:26am: It is stealthy - "stealthy" means it is invisible to radar and to a lesser extent, infra-red tracking systems. perhaps not. "“Invisible”? Apparently Not – F-35 Stealth Fighter Tracked by Website in Real Time" https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/f-35-stealth-fighter-plane.html "Experimental German radar 'tracked two U.S. F-35 stealth jet for 100 MILES' after lying in wait on a pony farm to catch them flying home from airshow" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7522413/German-radar-tracked-two-U-S-F-35-stealth-jet-100-MILES-hiding-pony-farm.html The F-35s had their transponders switched on, Lee.  Why do you think that was?  Perhaps because ATC had to track where they were, whereas in wartime, they'd turn it off, to confuse the enemy as to where their location was.  ::) ::)

The person on the ground was picking up other radar reflections
that had reflected off the skin of the aircraft.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:28pm:

The F-35s had their transponders switched on, Lee.

Did they? Proof? ;)

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:20pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 4:17pm: If the Americans complain about them, and there's been a few, why wouldn't we suffer from the F35's shortcomings? The massive cost of these planes will escalate over time, like everything else that goes over budget They've been "pushed" onto allies of the US, if the OP is correct. There'd be only one reason for that, getting the allies to share in the mega billions of dollars of development of the F35. We are suckers, these planes will lie idle in hangers for long periods, just because the NWO think we should have them. They cost a mint to fly them for just one hour, A$50,000. How many are we getting, 70 or so Also - the F111s had a much greater range. We need range with such a large country.

The F-111 did have range but it was not stealthy, it was a strike aircraft, not a fighter (despite the designation suffix) and it was at the end of it's life when it was retired.  It lacked all the whizz-bang systems of the F-35 and it was over the hill, well and truly.  ::) ::)

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:31pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 4:25pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 1:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 10:26am: Now, Bobby, why isn't this in the Defence Forum?  ::) ::) Because not only me but other posters have complained that you delete on topic posts at your MRB. The rules are there, Bobby.  If you cannot accept them, that is your look out.  Creating threads in a forum which is not where defence should be discussed is childish, as childish as your posting of Racist cartoons...  ::) ::) Not as childish as deleting on topic posts because you don't like them.

The rules of the forum are there for all to see, Bobby.  No Racism, no personal attacks are allowed.  QED.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:33pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 4:17pm: If the Americans complain about them, and there's been a few, why wouldn't we suffer from the F35's shortcomings? The massive cost of these planes will escalate over time, like everything else that goes over budget They've been "pushed" onto allies of the US, if the OP is correct. There'd be only one reason for that, getting the allies to share in the mega billions of dollars of development of the F35. We are suckers, these planes will lie idle in hangers for long periods, just because the NWO think we should have them. They cost a mint to fly them for just one hour, A$50,000. How many are we getting, 70 or so And here is something I challenge all critics of the F-35 programme with. "What alternatives are there, which are as effective and as advanced as the F-35 which are available to the RAAF?"  Well, here's a chance to hear your suggestions.  There is nothing as developed and as available as the F-35 programme.  The only way to take part in it is either hand over oodles and oodles of cash or hand over a lot less and be a part of the construction programme.   The Russian Su57 is not as advanced.  The Chinese J-20 fighter is not as advanced. The BAe Tempest is no where ready to fly.  Those are the only three stealth fighters available.  ::) ::)

The Russian Su57 has never come up against the J35.
I wonder what what would happen?
There are no Su57s in the Middle East.

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/29024/No_Middle_East_Nation_Interested_in_Russia_s_Su_57_Jet#.YExdbZtxWUk

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:33pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 4:28pm: lee wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 3:35pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 10:26am: It is stealthy - "stealthy" means it is invisible to radar and to a lesser extent, infra-red tracking systems. perhaps not. "“Invisible”? Apparently Not – F-35 Stealth Fighter Tracked by Website in Real Time" https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/f-35-stealth-fighter-plane.html "Experimental German radar 'tracked two U.S. F-35 stealth jet for 100 MILES' after lying in wait on a pony farm to catch them flying home from airshow" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7522413/German-radar-tracked-two-U-S-F-35-stealth-jet-100-MILES-hiding-pony-farm.html The F-35s had their transponders switched on, Lee.  Why do you think that was?  Perhaps because ATC had to track where they were, whereas in wartime, they'd turn it off, to confuse the enemy as to where their location was.  ::) ::) The person on the ground was picking up other radar reflections that had reflected off the skin of the aircraft.

F-35s are stealthy to radar directed at them from the head on perspective, Bobby.  The radars in question were directed at them from a tail on perspective and they had their transponders switched on.  Most modern ATC radars actually work via transponders, not radar energy.  ::) ::)

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:37pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 4:33pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 4:17pm: If the Americans complain about them, and there's been a few, why wouldn't we suffer from the F35's shortcomings? The massive cost of these planes will escalate over time, like everything else that goes over budget They've been "pushed" onto allies of the US, if the OP is correct. There'd be only one reason for that, getting the allies to share in the mega billions of dollars of development of the F35. We are suckers, these planes will lie idle in hangers for long periods, just because the NWO think we should have them. They cost a mint to fly them for just one hour, A$50,000. How many are we getting, 70 or so And here is something I challenge all critics of the F-35 programme with. "What alternatives are there, which are as effective and as advanced as the F-35 which are available to the RAAF?"  Well, here's a chance to hear your suggestions.  There is nothing as developed and as available as the F-35 programme.  The only way to take part in it is either hand over oodles and oodles of cash or hand over a lot less and be a part of the construction programme.   The Russian Su57 is not as advanced.  The Chinese J-20 fighter is not as advanced. The BAe Tempest is no where ready to fly.  Those are the only three stealth fighters available.  ::) ::) The Russian Su57 has never come up against the J35. I wonder what what would happen?

The Su57 would  come off the worse for it, Bobby.  ::) ::)

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 4:28pm: The F-35s had their transponders switched on, Lee. Did they? Proof? ;)

How do you think ATC radars work, Lee?

Radars rely on aircraft transponders to identify the aircraft.  Radars actually display the transponder data, not the radar reflection.  Radar reflections are actually relatively short range, except for military ones, because they lack the energy required to do it.  It is cheaper that way and people don't complain about the TVs and radios not working properly...  Funny that, hey?  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:39pm:

F-35s are stealthy to radar directed at them from the head on perspective, Bobby.  The radars in question were directed at them from a tail on perspective and they had their transponders switched on.  Most modern ATV radars actually work via transponders, not radar energy.  ::) ::)

Stealth works best by not reflecting back any radar
signal back to the source of the transmitter.
The F35 is very good at that however it can reflect
signals from another source at a different angle
to the observer.
That is the weakness used in this case.

The F35 has ferromagnetic paint -
basically ferrite material -
mixed with the paint to absorb radar transmissions
but it can't stop all reflections as
the ground radar transmitters can have gigawatt pulses.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:51pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 4:39pm: F-35s are stealthy to radar directed at them from the head on perspective, Bobby.  The radars in question were directed at them from a tail on perspective and they had their transponders switched on.  Most modern ATV radars actually work via transponders, not radar energy.  ::) ::) Stealth works best by not reflecting back any radar signal back to the source of the transmitter. The F35 is very good at that however it can reflect signals from another source at a different angle to the observer. That is the weakness used in this case. The F35 has ferromagnetic paint - basically ferrite material - mixed with the paint to absorb radar transmissions but it can't stop all reflections as the ground radar transmitters can have gigawatt pulses.

You mean they just paint them and they just disappear?  Who'd have thunk it, hey, Bobby?  Dulux Paint can just fix it all, right?  ::) ::)

In reality, a great deal of effort in the "stealth" field goes into "shaping" the aircraft's design so as to not reflect the radar signal.  If you look at the early efforts as stealth, you see angular, straight edges.  As the theory and practice developed (and the computer power increased) more curved shapes predominate.  Stealthy coatings decrease and the reliance is more on the shape.  Interestingly, they still have difficulties "fixing" the fuselage shape.  Seems there is usually a "gap" in the design, which follows the fuselage...   ::)

Do you know where stealth was developed, Bobby?

I expect not.  Do you know who first theorized the idea?   I suspect not.  It was Pyotr Ufimtsev - a Russian.  Who applied the first stealthy coating?  The British, on a Canberra bomber in the mid-1960s.  Funny that, hey?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:46pm:

Radars rely on aircraft transponders to identify the aircraft.

Nope. Aircraft identification is a different beast. A Friend or Foe type situation. Radar relies on Reflected Radio waves. Not on Transmissions from aircraft.

And of course we have Over-The-Horizon-RADAR to enhance distance.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 5:03pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 4:51pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 4:39pm: F-35s are stealthy to radar directed at them from the head on perspective, Bobby.  The radars in question were directed at them from a tail on perspective and they had their transponders switched on.  Most modern ATV radars actually work via transponders, not radar energy.  ::) ::) Stealth works best by not reflecting back any radar signal back to the source of the transmitter. The F35 is very good at that however it can reflect signals from another source at a different angle to the observer. That is the weakness used in this case. The F35 has ferromagnetic paint - basically ferrite material - mixed with the paint to absorb radar transmissions but it can't stop all reflections as the ground radar transmitters can have gigawatt pulses. You mean they just paint them and they just disappear?  Who'd have thunk it, hey, Bobby?  Dulux Paint can just fix it all, right?  ::) ::) In reality, a great deal of effort in the "stealth" field goes into "shaping" the aircraft's design so as to no reflect the radar signal.  If you look at the early efforts as stealth, you seem angular, straight edges.  As the theory and practice developed (and the computer power increased) more curved shapes predominate.  Stealthy coatings decrease and the reliance is more on the shape.  Interestingly, they still have difficulties "fixing" the fuselage shape.  Seems there is usually a "gap" in the design, which follows the fuselage...   ::) Do you know where stealth was developed, Bobby? I expect not.  Do you know who first theorized the idea?   I suspect not.  It was Pyotr Ufimtsev - a Russian.  Who applied the first stealthy coating?  The British, on a Canberra bomber in the mid-1960s.  Funny that, hey?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Brian,
I guarantee that I know a lot more about radar than you.
No paint coating is perfect.
No shape is perfect at least not to Gigawatt pulses.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 5:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 5:03pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 4:51pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 4:39pm: F-35s are stealthy to radar directed at them from the head on perspective, Bobby.  The radars in question were directed at them from a tail on perspective and they had their transponders switched on.  Most modern ATV radars actually work via transponders, not radar energy.  ::) ::) Stealth works best by not reflecting back any radar signal back to the source of the transmitter. The F35 is very good at that however it can reflect signals from another source at a different angle to the observer. That is the weakness used in this case. The F35 has ferromagnetic paint - basically ferrite material - mixed with the paint to absorb radar transmissions but it can't stop all reflections as the ground radar transmitters can have gigawatt pulses. You mean they just paint them and they just disappear?  Who'd have thunk it, hey, Bobby?  Dulux Paint can just fix it all, right?  ::) ::) In reality, a great deal of effort in the "stealth" field goes into "shaping" the aircraft's design so as to no reflect the radar signal.  If you look at the early efforts as stealth, you seem angular, straight edges.  As the theory and practice developed (and the computer power increased) more curved shapes predominate.  Stealthy coatings decrease and the reliance is more on the shape.  Interestingly, they still have difficulties "fixing" the fuselage shape.  Seems there is usually a "gap" in the design, which follows the fuselage...   ::) Do you know where stealth was developed, Bobby? I expect not.  Do you know who first theorized the idea?   I suspect not.  It was Pyotr Ufimtsev - a Russian.  Who applied the first stealthy coating?  The British, on a Canberra bomber in the mid-1960s.  Funny that, hey?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) Brian, I guarantee that I know a lot more about radar than you. No paint coating is perfect. No shape is perfect at least not to Gigawatt pulses.

Care to name a radar set that has power in that range, Bobby?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 5:39pm:

Care to name a radar set that has power in that range, Bobby?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

A radar at any international airport -
they can pick up an aircraft 220 miles away.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 5:42pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 5:39pm: Care to name a radar set that has power in that range, Bobby?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) A radar at any international airport - they can pick up an aircraft 220 miles away.

So, "a radar at any international airport," is in the "gigawatt" range of power, is it?  Really, Bobby?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  There are no gigawatt power radars anywhere in the world, Bobby.  You do know that, though, oh, radar man?  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 7:15pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 5:42pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 5:39pm: Care to name a radar set that has power in that range, Bobby?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) A radar at any international airport - they can pick up an aircraft 220 miles away. So, "a radar at any international airport," is in the "gigawatt" range of power, is it?  Really, Bobby? Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  There are no gigawatt power radars anywhere in the world, Bobby.  You do know that, though, oh, radar man?  ::) ::)

Brian -
apologise:
You need to research peak pulse power as opposed to average power
and effective radiated directional power.

page 6 of 25

https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/compendium/2700.00-2900.00_01MAR14-1.pdf


If two or more ASR systems are used at an airport, they must be separated by at least 30 MHz.5 As a general rule, other radar systems operating in the band 2700-2900 MHz are not permitted to be located within radio line-of-sight of an ASR system, unless there is a 10 MHz separation between their operating frequencies.
All of the existing versions of the ASR system generate high-power pulsed radio frequency signals, using tube-output devices.6 The ASR systems all employ high gain directional gain antennas. The equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) can be on the order of 1x109 watts, or a Gigawatt for the ASR systems.7 The ASR systems employ a low duty cycle pulsed waveform which allows compatible operation with other radar systems in the band using smaller frequency and distance separations.8 The ASR-11 takes advantage of the latest advances in radar design employing solid-state technology to produce the required power level.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 7:15pm:

So, "a radar at any international airport," is in the "gigawatt" range of power, is it?

You forgot an important rider. It was the term Pulse.

It is not average power. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 8:03pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 7:15pm: So, "a radar at any international airport," is in the "gigawatt" range of power, is it?  You forgot an important rider. It was the term Pulse. It is not average power. ;)

Non technical people always get mixed up with that.
Example -
if you have a 1 watt average power over 1 second and you
dissipate all that power in a micro second
then the peak pulse power is a megawatt.
1 watt is a Joule per second.
That's what happens when you discharge a capacitor quickly.

Radar uses short powerful pulses typically only 2 microseconds long
but they pack enormous power into that short
period of time.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 8:08pm:

lee wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 8:03pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 7:15pm: So, "a radar at any international airport," is in the "gigawatt" range of power, is it?  You forgot an important rider. It was the term Pulse. It is not average power. ;) Non technical people always get mixed up with that. Example - if you have a 1 watt average power over 1 second and you dissipate all that power in a micro second then the peak pulse power is a megawatt. 1 watt is a Joule per second. That's what happens when you discharge a capacitor quickly. Radar uses short powerful pulses typically only 2 microseconds long but they pack enormous power into that short period of time.

You still haven't name a single Radar set within that range, Bobby.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 7:15pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 5:42pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 5:39pm: Care to name a radar set that has power in that range, Bobby?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) A radar at any international airport - they can pick up an aircraft 220 miles away. So, "a radar at any international airport," is in the "gigawatt" range of power, is it?  Really, Bobby? Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  There are no gigawatt power radars anywhere in the world, Bobby.  You do know that, though, oh, radar man?  ::) ::)

Brian -
apologise:
You need to research peak pulse power as opposed to average power
and effective radiated directional power.

page 6 of 25

https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/compendium/2700.00-2900.00_01MAR14-1.pdf


If two or more ASR systems are used at an airport, they must be separated by at least 30 MHz.5 As a general rule, other radar systems operating in the band 2700-2900 MHz are not permitted to be located within radio line-of-sight of an ASR system, unless there is a 10 MHz separation between their operating frequencies.
All of the existing versions of the ASR system generate high-power pulsed radio frequency signals, using tube-output devices.6 The ASR systems all employ high gain directional gain antennas. The equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) can be on the order of 1x109 watts, or a Gigawatt for the ASR systems.7 The ASR systems employ a low duty cycle pulsed waveform which allows compatible operation with other radar systems in the band using smaller frequency and distance separations.8 The ASR-11 takes advantage of the latest advances in radar design employing solid-state technology to produce the required power level.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14^th, 2021 at 12:31pm:

You still haven't name a single Radar set within that range, Bobby.  ::) ::)

CSF Route Surveillance Radar Transmitter - 1960s-1990s.

http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/ML%20CSF%20TAR.htm

This photo shows the Melbourne Route Surveillance Radar (RSR), located in the transmitter building on Radar Hill, to the north-west of the runway intersection at Melbourne/Tullamarine Airport. There was a second, backup, transmitter adjacent to this one. Melbourne also had a very similar, duplicated Terminal Area Radar (TAR), of which one transmitter is preserved in the Airways Museum - click here to see and read about it.

This equipment, supplied by French company CSF (later Thomson-CSF), was the first 'standard' air traffic control radar equipment to be installed in Australia. The first of these long-range primary radars was commissioned at Sydney Airport in September 1962. They served Australia’s capital city airports until the early 1990s. The Melbourne radars were in service from 1966 to 1992.

From the early 1970s, the long-range primary radars were supplemented by Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR).

This RSR was replaced by a 250 NM monopulse SSR located on Mount Macedon.

These radars were used with the Bright Display and ATCARDS air traffic control display systems.


Specification:
Manufacturer      Compagnie Générale de Télégraphie Sans Fil (CSF)
Range      120 NM, later 160 NM
Frequency range      1300 MHz and 1345 MHz (frequency diversity)
Output power      2 Megawatts
Pulse width      

1.5 microseconds


http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/navaids%20images/CSF-radar-ML.jpg

Good enough, Bobby.  Of course that shows you can search the web, your Google-fu is strong.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15^th, 2021 at 4:31pm:

Good enough, Bobby.  Of course that shows you can search the web, your Google-fu is strong.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

How about an apology Brian?

Bobby. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2021 at 4:41pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2021 at 4:31pm: Good enough, Bobby.  Of course that shows you can search the web, your Google-fu is strong.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) How about an apology Brian?

For what?  Doubting your claims?  Yet when I demand an apology from you, you remain silent on your wrong doing.  I'm just following your example, Bobby.  Correct your mistakes and apologise for them and I might be willing to apologise for my errors.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 11:38am:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 15th, 2021 at 4:41pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2021 at 4:31pm: Good enough, Bobby.  Of course that shows you can search the web, your Google-fu is strong.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) How about an apology Brian? For what?  Doubting your claims?  Yet when I demand an apology from you, you remain silent on your wrong doing.  I'm just following your example, Bobby.  Correct your mistakes and apologise for them and I might be willing to apologise for my errors.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

You're a doubting Thomas -
you make me prove every claim and then you don't apologise when your doubts are proven wrong.


Brian,

Quote:

So, "a radar at any international airport," is in the "gigawatt" range of power, is it?  Really, Bobby? Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  There are no gigawatt power radars anywhere in the world, Bobby.  You do know that, though, oh, radar man?   ::) ::)

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 11:46am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 11:38am: Bobby. wrote on Mar 15th, 2021 at 4:41pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 15th, 2021 at 4:31pm: Good enough, Bobby.  Of course that shows you can search the web, your Google-fu is strong.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) How about an apology Brian? For what?  Doubting your claims?  Yet when I demand an apology from you, you remain silent on your wrong doing.  I'm just following your example, Bobby.  Correct your mistakes and apologise for them and I might be willing to apologise for my errors.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) You're a doubting Thomas - you make me prove every claim and then you don't apologise when your doubts are proven wrong. Brian, Quote: So, "a radar at any international airport," is in the "gigawatt" range of power, is it?  Really, Bobby? Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  There are no gigawatt power radars anywhere in the world, Bobby.  You do know that, though, oh, radar man?   ::) ::)

https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/google/223/yawning-face_1f971.png

You set the standard, Bobby.  Unwilling to live by it?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 11:49am:

https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/google/223/yawning-face_1f971.png You set the standard, Bobby.  Unwilling to live by it?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Brian,
when have I ever doubted you?
If anything I've always reminded people here of your
numerous degrees and you doctor of Divinity.

you are forgiven
according to the divine plan
namaste

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 10:26am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 9:12am: Why are we buying them? We can't afford a lemon like that. We should cancel the order before we go completely broke Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  McFate is a true ground pounder with a ground pounder's ideas on what constitutes "warfare".  He is dismissive of the F-35's abilities which he obviously doesn't understand.  It is stealthy - "stealthy" means it is invisible to radar and to a lesser extent, infra-red tracking systems.  It is part of an integrated systems approach to warfare - which means it is part of a system which is combined to create a package of aircraft that can outmanoeuvre enemy aircraft strategically.  It has advanced EO (Electro-Optics) system which effectively allows the pilot to "see through" the aircraft and which automatically spots any missile launches against it.  It has an advanced mission management system which allows it to integrate closely and automatically with AEW&C aircraft.    Basically it is a generation ahead of any aircraft presently flying, including the F-22.  The days that fighter aircraft take on one another, individually died at the end of WWI and was effectively killed in WWII.  Today, fighters fight as a unit, not single planes.   This ability has all come at a cost.  Fighters are the top of the line aircraft and so cost more than bombers and CAS aircraft.    The reason why we, Australia, is buying these aircraft is because there isn't anything out there that even comes close to the F-35 in capability. No Russian, no Chinese, no British, no Japanese, nothing.  RAAF has long attempted to structure itself as a leading air force in our region.  We purchased the F-86/CA-27, the Mirage IIIO, the F-111 and the F/A-18 because they were better than what anybody else had, in the region.  The F-35 continues that trend. Now, Bobby, why isn't this in the Defence Forum?  ::) ::)

And Brian knocks two birds with one stone.  ;D

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 1:19pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 10:26am: Now, Bobby, why isn't this in the Defence Forum?  ::) ::) Because not only me but other posters have complained that you delete on topic posts at your MRB.

He does have a point Brian and Bobby can post topics that he likes in his own Board, but I would think this Topic is best suited to Defense Board.

...you may need to compromise a bit Brian.  ;)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:33pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 4:17pm: If the Americans complain about them, and there's been a few, why wouldn't we suffer from the F35's shortcomings? The massive cost of these planes will escalate over time, like everything else that goes over budget They've been "pushed" onto allies of the US, if the OP is correct. There'd be only one reason for that, getting the allies to share in the mega billions of dollars of development of the F35. We are suckers, these planes will lie idle in hangers for long periods, just because the NWO think we should have them. They cost a mint to fly them for just one hour, A$50,000. How many are we getting, 70 or so And here is something I challenge all critics of the F-35 programme with. "What alternatives are there, which are as effective and as advanced as the F-35 which are available to the RAAF?"  Well, here's a chance to hear your suggestions.  There is nothing as developed and as available as the F-35 programme.  The only way to take part in it is either hand over oodles and oodles of cash or hand over a lot less and be a part of the construction programme.   The Russian Su57 is not as advanced.  The Chinese J-20 fighter is not as advanced. The BAe Tempest is no where ready to fly.  Those are the only three stealth fighters available.  ::) ::)

Now my turn. Those F-35's might be the bees knees of the USA Airforce Innovation (America is the best in the Air: Eagle) and I don't deny their capability.
But considering we have some of the best Drone Innovators in the world. Shouldn't we be perfecting these for a much cheaper contingency plan that could prove effective? We win a lot at the International Drone Comps. We need to build upon this.

The cost of the F-35's is not cheap, in fact - they're very very expensive.
If I was China, I would just missile Australia's 'Control' installations to make these things fly as I'm sure they might be dependent to some ground control (?).

I gather the purchase of these in a time of Peace, means that we are readying for WAR.

Jasin wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 1:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 1:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 10:26am: Now, Bobby, why isn't this in the Defence Forum?  ::) ::) Because not only me but other posters have complained that you delete on topic posts at your MRB. He does have a point Brian and Bobby can post topics that he likes in his own Board, but I would think this Topic is best suited to Defense Board. ...you may need to compromise a bit Brian.  ;)

Brian has to stop being a dictator and
start being a moderator.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 4:01pm:

Jasin wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 1:16pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 1:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 10:26am: Now, Bobby, why isn't this in the Defence Forum?  ::) ::) Because not only me but other posters have complained that you delete on topic posts at your MRB. He does have a point Brian and Bobby can post topics that he likes in his own Board, but I would think this Topic is best suited to Defense Board. ...you may need to compromise a bit Brian.  ;) Brian has to stop being a dictator and start being a moderator.

But you need to shine your shoes Bobby when on parade.
Next time, you'll be doing sit ups with him standing at ease over you.  ;D

Jasin wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 4:09pm:

But you need to shine your shoes Bobby when on parade. Next time, you'll be doing sit ups with him standing at ease over you.  ;D

Brian is a narcissist.

He kisses his mirror every day.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 4:01pm:

Jasin wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 1:16pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 1:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 10:26am: Now, Bobby, why isn't this in the Defence Forum?  ::) ::) Because not only me but other posters have complained that you delete on topic posts at your MRB. He does have a point Brian and Bobby can post topics that he likes in his own Board, but I would think this Topic is best suited to Defense Board. ...you may need to compromise a bit Brian.  ;) Brian has to stop being a dictator and start being a moderator.

So, how would I do that, Bobby?  The rules were set when I took over as Moderator.  I posted them up, at the top of the intro page.  Are you suggesting that they should be changed to allow open slather?  Really?  We could talk about Gay people all day, then.  We could scream and insult one another, with gay abandon.  We could malign innocent people.  What difference would there be in that forum and all the other forums where such antics are tolerated, Bobby.  Like this one...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 5:06pm:

So, how would I do that, Bobby?  The rules were set when I took over as Moderator.  I posted them up, at the top of the intro page.  Are you suggesting that they should be changed to allow open slather?  Really?  We could talk about Gay people all day, then.  We could scream and insult one another, with gay abandon.  We could malign innocent people.  What difference would there be in that forum and all the other forums where such antics are tolerated, Bobby.  Like this one...  ::) ::)

Brian you censored a 100 year old cartoon -
here:

https://imgpile.com/images/7LaI1F.jpg

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 5:25pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 5:06pm: So, how would I do that, Bobby?  The rules were set when I took over as Moderator.  I posted them up, at the top of the intro page.  Are you suggesting that they should be changed to allow open slather?  Really?  We could talk about Gay people all day, then.  We could scream and insult one another, with gay abandon.  We could malign innocent people.  What difference would there be in that forum and all the other forums where such antics are tolerated, Bobby.  Like this one...  ::) ::) Brian you censored a 100 year old cartoon - here: https://imgpile.com/images/7LaI1F.jpg

Bobby, you posted a 100 year old, Racist cartoon.  No persecution of innocent people is allowed.  Why do you find that such a hard rule to obey?  Do you thirst to persecute innocent people?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 5:29pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 5:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 5:06pm: So, how would I do that, Bobby?  The rules were set when I took over as Moderator.  I posted them up, at the top of the intro page.  Are you suggesting that they should be changed to allow open slather?  Really?  We could talk about Gay people all day, then.  We could scream and insult one another, with gay abandon.  We could malign innocent people.  What difference would there be in that forum and all the other forums where such antics are tolerated, Bobby.  Like this one...  ::) ::) Brian you censored a 100 year old cartoon - here: https://imgpile.com/images/7LaI1F.jpg Bobby, you posted a 100 year old, Racist cartoon.  No persecution of innocent people is allowed.  Why do you find that such a hard rule to obey?  Do you thirst to persecute innocent people?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

It showed that Chinese/ USA tensions are very old -
it was an historical document of great importance.
It was on topic:


https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1600033097/0#0

China tensions:
Sep 14th, 2020 at 8:38am Quote
China, US tensions: Next 10 months are ‘critical’ to avoid war.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 5:45pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 5:29pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 5:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 5:06pm: So, how would I do that, Bobby?  The rules were set when I took over as Moderator.  I posted them up, at the top of the intro page.  Are you suggesting that they should be changed to allow open slather?  Really?  We could talk about Gay people all day, then.  We could scream and insult one another, with gay abandon.  We could malign innocent people.  What difference would there be in that forum and all the other forums where such antics are tolerated, Bobby.  Like this one...  ::) ::) Brian you censored a 100 year old cartoon - here: https://imgpile.com/images/7LaI1F.jpg Bobby, you posted a 100 year old, Racist cartoon.  No persecution of innocent people is allowed.  Why do you find that such a hard rule to obey?  Do you thirst to persecute innocent people?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) It showed that Chinese/ USA tensions are very old - it was an historical document of great importance. It was on topic:

Bobby, you posted a 100 year old, Racist cartoon.  No persecution of innocent people is allowed.  Why do you find that such a hard rule to obey?  Do you thirst to persecute innocent people?  It certainly appears so.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 5:56pm:

Bobby, you posted a 100 year old, Racist cartoon.  No persecution of innocent people is allowed.  Why do you find that such a hard rule to obey?  Do you thirst to persecute innocent people?  It certainly appears so.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Brian - it's a politics forum -
not a left wing, woke, progressive meet up.
Grow a set of balls.

Brian's view is apparent Bobby.
He sees that picture as offensive,
although you do not.
You have a choice to play by 'his' rules and oblige or keep pushing it and get banned, deleted, etc.

It's not about right or wrong. It's about Power and you have none here really. Look what Monk and Peccary do with their Boards and Brian doesn't even come close to them.

Ok Brian. I get a 'Get out of Gaol' Free Card for this one.  ;)

Brian is a fkucwit.

In his thread, 'Blackhawk Down' I posted an actual pic of a Blackhawk which crashed in Mogadishu which gave name to the movie he named his thread after, and the autistic wanker deleted it.

https://i.ibb.co/tbzzYN3/AP-mogadishu-ml-131004-4x3-384.jpg

Jasin wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 7:17pm:

Brian's view is apparent Bobby. He sees that picture as offensive, although you do not. You have a choice to play by 'his' rules and oblige or keep pushing it and get banned, deleted, etc. It's not about right or wrong. It's about Power and you have none here really. Look what Monk and Peccary do with their Boards and Brian doesn't even come close to them. Ok Brian. I get a 'Get out of Gaol' Free Card for this one.  ;)

The picture here is not offensive:

https://imgpile.com/images/7LaI1F.jpg

Gordon wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 7:23pm:

Brian is a fkucwit. In his thread, 'Blackhawk Down' I posted an actual pic of a Blackhawk which crashed in Mogadishu which gave name to the movie he named his thread after, and the autistic wanker deleted it. https://i.ibb.co/tbzzYN3/AP-mogadishu-ml-131004-4x3-384.jpg

Thanks Gordy for your support.
I offer Brian an olive branch -
if he lets me post this picture at his MRB
https://imgpile.com/images/7LaI1F.jpg
I will move this thread to his MRB
provided he promises not to alter it.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 7:24pm:

Jasin wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 7:17pm: Brian's view is apparent Bobby. He sees that picture as offensive, although you do not. You have a choice to play by 'his' rules and oblige or keep pushing it and get banned, deleted, etc. It's not about right or wrong. It's about Power and you have none here really. Look what Monk and Peccary do with their Boards and Brian doesn't even come close to them. Ok Brian. I get a 'Get out of Gaol' Free Card for this one.  ;) The picture here is not offensive: https://imgpile.com/images/7LaI1F.jpg

Nor is this. It's a photo of a Blackhawk DOWN in a thread called Blackhawk Down.

https://i.ibb.co/tbzzYN3/AP-mogadishu-ml-131004-4x3-384.jpg

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 6:03pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 5:56pm: Bobby, you posted a 100 year old, Racist cartoon.  No persecution of innocent people is allowed.  Why do you find that such a hard rule to obey?  Do you thirst to persecute innocent people?  It certainly appears so.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) Brian - it's a politics forum - not a left wing, woke, progressive meet up. Grow a set of balls.

https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/google/223/yawning-face_1f971.png

Spoken by a creature that obviously doesn't have any.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 7:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 6:03pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 5:56pm: Bobby, you posted a 100 year old, Racist cartoon.  No persecution of innocent people is allowed.  Why do you find that such a hard rule to obey?  Do you thirst to persecute innocent people?  It certainly appears so.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) Brian - it's a politics forum - not a left wing, woke, progressive meet up. Grow a set of balls. https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/google/223/yawning-face_1f971.png Spoken by a creature that obviously doesn't have any.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Brian,
I offered you an olive branch above.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 7:48pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 7:42pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 6:03pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 5:56pm: Bobby, you posted a 100 year old, Racist cartoon.  No persecution of innocent people is allowed.  Why do you find that such a hard rule to obey?  Do you thirst to persecute innocent people?  It certainly appears so.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) Brian - it's a politics forum - not a left wing, woke, progressive meet up. Grow a set of balls. https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/google/223/yawning-face_1f971.png Spoken by a creature that obviously doesn't have any.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) Brian, I offered you an olive branch above.

If you cannot play by the rules, that is your choice, Bobby.  JaSin can.  Belgarion can.  Many other posters can.  Why do you find it so hard?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 8:23pm:

If you cannot play by the rules, that is your choice, Bobby.  JaSin can.  Belgarion can.  Many other posters can.  Why do you find it so hard?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Brian - you've lost the plot -
this is a politics - debating forum -
not somewhere that you impose only your point of view.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 8:27pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 8:23pm: If you cannot play by the rules, that is your choice, Bobby.  JaSin can.  Belgarion can.  Many other posters can.  Why do you find it so hard?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) Brian - you've lost the plot - this is a politics - debating forum - not somewhere that you impose only your point of view.

Back in the very old days of USENet, there were nothing except words to make an argument, Bobby.  Today, you have access to the entire WWW's resources.  Shame a lot of it still revolves around the persecution of innocent people who don't deserve it.  All the other posts appear able to make their arguments without resorting to the use of offensives, Racist, cartoons.  I wonder why you have so much difficulty?  Could it be that deep down, at heart, you are a Racist, Bobby?  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 8:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 8:27pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 8:23pm: If you cannot play by the rules, that is your choice, Bobby.  JaSin can.  Belgarion can.  Many other posters can.  Why do you find it so hard?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) Brian - you've lost the plot - this is a politics - debating forum - not somewhere that you impose only your point of view. Back in the very old days of USENet, there were nothing except words to make an argument, Bobby.  Today, you have access to the entire WWW's resources.  Shame a lot of it still revolves around the persecution of innocent people who don't deserve it.  All the other posts appear able to make their arguments without resorting to the use of offensives, Racist, cartoons.  I wonder why you have so much difficulty?  Could it be that deep down, at heart, you are a Racist, Bobby?  ::) ::)

Brian -
this is not a racist cartoon:
https://imgpile.com/images/7LaI1F.jpg

it was stating facts.

Did you know about the
lapse of the Chinese exclusion law May 5th 1902?

You only found out about it because of me - that's who.

https://study.com/academy/answer/was-the-chinese-exclusion-act-made-permanent-in-1902.html

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 9:06pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 8:56pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 8:27pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16th, 2021 at 8:23pm: If you cannot play by the rules, that is your choice, Bobby.  JaSin can.  Belgarion can.  Many other posters can.  Why do you find it so hard?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) Brian - you've lost the plot - this is a politics - debating forum - not somewhere that you impose only your point of view. Back in the very old days of USENet, there were nothing except words to make an argument, Bobby.  Today, you have access to the entire WWW's resources.  Shame a lot of it still revolves around the persecution of innocent people who don't deserve it.  All the other posts appear able to make their arguments without resorting to the use of offensives, Racist, cartoons.  I wonder why you have so much difficulty?  Could it be that deep down, at heart, you are a Racist, Bobby?  ::) ::) Brian - this is not a racist cartoon: https://imgpile.com/images/7LaI1F.jpg it was stating facts. Did you know about the lapse of the Chinese exclusion law May 5th 1902? You only found out about it because of me - that's who. https://study.com/academy/answer/was-the-chinese-exclusion-act-made-permanent-in-1902.html

I was well aware of it, way back in the mid-1980s, Bobby.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 9:50pm:

I was well aware of it, way back in the mid-1980s, Bobby.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

Sorry - of course - you would know.
What about your readers?

I didn't know until about a week ago.

You guys still going at it? ;D

Gordon's got a valid good point there Brian.
You can't be too pedantic, as a Mod - you may have free reign in your own Board. But you also have to act on behalf of the Forum as a whole. Don't act like the Trolls from Monkey Mania, who say they are in it for the good of the Forum, but are only in it for themselves (and their PA tree house).

Jasin wrote on Mar 16^th, 2021 at 10:15pm:

You guys still going at it? ;D Gordon's got a valid good point there Brian. You can't be too pedantic, as a Mod - you may have free reign in your own Board. But you also have to act on behalf of the Forum as a whole. Don't act like the Trolls from Monkey Mania, who say they are in it for the good of the Forum, but are only in it for themselves (and their PA tree house).

Did you know about the
lapse of the Chinese exclusion law May 5th 1902?

Another report about the F-35.
Looks like we bought a lemon.

https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/f_35_incapable_of_defending_aus

The F-35 Joint Striker is
incapable of defending Australia.


March 26, 2021

There’s a reason the CCP thinks we’re “gum stuck to China’s shoe”.

Like Advance and its tens of thousands of supporters, Xi Jinping and his mates know Australia hasn’t got the sufficient defence capabilities required to defend ourselves from a northern threat.

Just look at our Air Force.

As far back as 2002, Australia put all its cards in the F-35 Joint Striker basket.

Now after 33 of the F-35s have entered into service, it’s announced the aircraft’s forecast flying hours have been slashed by 36 per cent, after the US Air Force said they should only be flown infrequently due to engine-wear problems.

The F-35 isn’t alone.

The C-27J Spartan — a new battlefield lifter added to Defence’s project watchlist because of problems with its electronic protection system — has had its flying hours cut by 55 per cent.

The navy’s MH-60R Seahawk helicopter has had its 2020-21 flying hours reduced by 30 per cent, while the classic F/A-18 Hornets’ hours have been cut 20 per cent.

This is an embarrassment to Australia and a gross disservice to Australian taxpayers who’ll be burdened by the cost of such blunders for generations to come.

Although, US Air Force Chief of Staff Charles Brown tried to downplay concerns about the reduced flying hours of the F-35 by saying “you don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays,” his comparison is unfair.

As made clear by Robert Gottliebsen this week, the F-35 is nowhere near the Ferrari of the skies.

Why?

Well while it’s true the F-35 has world-leading avionics technology, it lags grossly behind its Chinese and Russian competitors in terms of speed and altitude capabilities

For example, the F-35 can only operate at military combat levels of around 35,000 feet, and if using its afterburners can only get above 50,000 feet for a short period of time until it runs out of fuel.

Yet the Russian Sukhoi aircraft (Su-35S, Su-57E) and China’s Chengdu (J-20B) are fully functional at 50,000 to 60,000 feet as they were designed to combat America’s F-22.

Even worse is how the F-22 has been out of product for a decade, with not one based in Australia.

To make the seriousness of all this even clearer, Gottliebsen gave readers a scenario:

“A convoy of Russian Sukhoi or Chinese Chengdu aircraft head to Australia (they might have been sold to another nation) with the intent of bombing Darwin, the Tindal airbase and other targets in our north.

“The F-35 and its software might have sufficient capability to avoid destruction from the aircraft flying above.

“But the JSF/F-35 has a limited range and relies on support from the aerial refueller tankers and the E-7A Wedgetail aircraft.

“The Sukhoi or Chengdu aircraft flying above 50,000 feet can destroy the support aircraft below. “That leaves the JSF exposed because it needs regular mid-air refuelling.”



Hence why we need our top ministerial talent to convince the US to upgrade the F-22 and sell them to Australia, according to Gottliebsen. 

He even hints at the need to clear out the bureaucracy in the Department of Defence:

“An odd situation took place when Senator Jim Molan put the AirPower scenario to high ranking defence officials in the Senate.

“Their reply indicated they did not understand the ability of the Chinese and Russian aircraft to fly above 50,000 feet.

“It is possible that, along with the ministers, they did not know what was in the top-secret document.

“I hope that is wrong.”

So does Advance Australia, Mr Gottliebsen…

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strike-air-combat/7121-us-president-allegedly-approves-sale-of-upgraded-f-22-to-israel


Donald Trump has officially signed off on the sale of upgraded F-22 variants to Israel, that is, a platform combining the best technology of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, with the best technology of the F-22 to produce what would be the world's undisputed air superiority aircraft.

A major turn of events


"Australian defence officials have constantly stated that the US is not prepared to sell the F-22 to Australia or any other country and that it is too expensive. If the offer to Israel is confirmed by the US House of Representatives, it breaks down the first barrier. At the same time, the cost barrier has been substantially reduced.

"It is vital for the nation that we actually recognise the JSF’s problems and put our hand up for an F-22 that incorporates some of the brilliant technology in the JSF."

Gottliebsen goes further detailing the challenges and opportunities in jumping on board with the proposal, stating, "It is vital for the nation that we actually recognise the JSF’s problems and put our hand up for an F-22 that incorporates some of the brilliant technology in the JSF.

"If we can achieve that goal it will transform the air defence of Australia are and make us a much safer nation. The first hurdle is the US election and then there are lots of hurdles in Congress. But the decision is so sensible that it may appeal to both parties. And the Democrats will be reminded that back in the Clinton presidency they approved the sale to Israel of the F-22. But under the Bush administration it lapsed."

Australia always buys junk because they never consult the people who have to use it. Instead they take their advice from Andrew Peacock :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 28^th, 2021 at 10:19pm:

Australia always buys junk because they never consult the people who have to use it. Instead they take their advice from Andrew Peacock :(

I think Abbott decided to buy them.
The reason was so that we could operate alongside
the Yanks on any missions
due to the electronics compatibility.