Derek 2.0

Funny that the present day maker of the F-16 and F-35 doesn't agree.....likewise the operators of the aircraft

Try again in English....

And the legacy Hornet, Harrier, Falcon etc.....

And of course, yet again, you’re wrong, as also pointed out to you previously, the F-35 improves upon the agility of the F-16 and AoA of the Hornet and the sustained speed of the Harrier, not to mention the range of all three aircraft……hence an improvement over the aircraft it replaces……inversely, the sole engine issues has been resolved, and as pointed out the fuel temp problem was resolved by painting four trucks for a total of $16000…….. You’d better try and find new talking points, as your current parroted babbled is past its best before date….

Closer to what? The sole issue with the F135 has been resolved......The engine issues with the Super Hornet during development required completely new engines to resolve, and even then, was still a compromise (at best) when compared to the aircraft it replaced.....as a bomb truck it carried smaller loads, a shorter distance and as a fleet interceptor, its forced to intercept its targets closer to its bird farm, fore it too trailed behind the aircraft it replaced, lacking the sustained energy performance..... Inversely, the F-35, already, is an improvement over the three main legacy aircraft that it will replace........

......but was only done for the Super Hornet bomb truck.

You might not have "faith", but the actual real world operators do.......and of course the aircraft has been performing "serious Gs" since it was the X-35.....and "problems" associated with the engine were found in less than 12 examples......none the less, the entire inventory and future engines have addressed this, a problem discovered and resolved within the aircraft testing trails, much like what happened during the development of the Super Hornet, but unlike the Super Hornet, the F-35's engine wasn't completely replaced with a new engine.

Right, and as pointed out to you numerous times, said issues was resolved last year, and the entire F135 inventory has been retrofitted as of this month.....so what is your point?

Most modern overseas bases, namely in the Middle East, already have hydrants......those that don't, the Fighter Wing's logistic group that deploys with them, brings their thermally protected fuel bowsers

Exactly, and doubly so with most USAF/USN/USMC air bases that either currently have fuel hydrants or are getting ones installed.

Resolved by: And of course, other US bases in warmer climates, typically that once based aircraft from SAC/MAC, like Eglin, have fuel hydrants like any modern airport

As already pointed out to you, unlike legacy aircraft, the fuel within the F-35 acts as a heat sink to reduce the aircraft's IR signature, as intended....hardly a mistake, and the USAF having to repaint the tanks on several dozen fuel bowsers is hardly an issue

Odd that you still speak to this, as the fuel heat sink "issue" was solved with a thermal paint job for bowsers used in extremely hot areas........as to the engine "eating itself", engine power restrictions have since been lifted (this month) as minor modifications to the entire F135 inventory has been complete....

One slight historic correction, at Potsdam, Truman did notify Stalin of the intention to drop Atomic Bombs on Japan (The first successful test in Nevada occurred during the Potsdam conference)…..Stalin reportedly didn’t respond in shock to Truman’s revelation, and endorsed the idea to some degree, surprising Truman, who’d only learned of the program itself weeks earlier after his sudden promotion... ……..of course, unbeknownst to the Americans (and British), the Soviets already had their own atomic weapons program, of which received technical intelligence from the Manhattan project, via several American physicists with Communist leanings.

How about it indeed.......projected ~30% costs reductions by the end of the decade that will see the various versions cheaper than the legacy aircraft that they replace...........

No, your claim is not based on anything........you stated World War two area bombing was more accurate than North Korean artillery........you haven't provided any facts to support your claim. I never made such a claim, in fact, I stated North Korean artillery would be less accurate than Western Artillery.....not World War II area bombing...... No, you suggested a certain level of industrial ability applied against a whole nation based on one documented ~25% failure ratio example........rather simplistic. So, the North Koreans could have had an isolated case of bad explosives? No you didn't. I never stated or implied that. Because you stated the North Koreans ability to predict weather 50kms away (point of impact) is in doubt........... "Winds aloft"? It does better, it accounts for "winds-aloft" over the projected azimuth of the bullet from it's firing point.......likewise, there is no requirement to determine weather conditions 1-2 km (or 30-50kms) away, as the ballistic calculation is determined by an equation taken from a constant (known) firing table to that of the determined conditions of the firing point. Good, so we're in agreement with the DoD that North Korean artillery poses a threat to Seoul.... An argument that is still ongoing.......could you have exaggerated the ability of the South Koreans to defend themselves against the North?

Blowing up pipelines is an act of terrorism, as defined by the Criminal Code, and as already pointed out to you.......Chaining oneself to a piece of oil equipment or playing the part of speed-bump on an oil field access road isn't terrorism...... To make it crystal clear, so that if by chance any young eco-zealots are reading our exchange (and taking your uninformed opinion as gospel), plotting, assisting and carrying out any acts against O&G infrastructure that result in death or injury, the potential for death and injury, the destruction and/or sabotage of things their parents can't replace or seriously impedes the flow natural resources, will result in Federal (terrorism) charges. Federal terrorism charges, if when one is convicted will result in Federal prison time.....not parole, not at home with an ankle bracelet, nor in a tame Provincial prison. A Federal prison with actual violent criminals is where one is bound for 3+ years. Once you're eventually released, with a terrorist conviction on ones record, you'll never get a Government job, or be employed by a large company that conducts background checks (including banks, most large corporations, around children or the elderly or even Walmart & McDonalds for that mater) and will never be allowed entry into the United States, most of the EU or other modern civilized countries. Also, once C-51 is passed (and it will be), those that promote and/or encourage such acts (even on internet chat forums with like 10 members or comment sections on the CBC site) can be reasonably certain that they too will be eventually investigated....... So to make it very clear, blowing up pipelines is really bad, versus chaining ones self to something or planting oneself in the road playing bongo drums with sandwich boards....which might get you on the local news and maybe an arrest record if you're a real jerk about it.

Who do you mean by "we"? Canada? The "West"? Mankind? Again I fail to see why anyone would fault the new legislation for making it quite clear, that any form of torture wouldn't be condoned by the Government of Canada....

I already provided the legal definition for you..... and no, the whaling hasn't been stopped....

I never stated different.......as I said, the FLQ started with mailboxes and then clearly progressed. If an eco-group started cutting break lines on tanker trucks and progressed to lighting up the Chevron refinery in the Burrard inlet, at what point do you consider said groups actions as terrorism?

Yeah, a large group like Greenpeace doesn't want to be associated with eco-terrorism.......I don't blame them.

They sure do, even in my prior examples I linked for you, the tree spiking of Grouse Mountain was not only labelled terrorism by local government, but by Greenpeace!!!! You want to politically protest resource based industries in the post 9/11 environment, chain yourself to something or play bongo drums in the middle of the road......if you start blowing up pipelines or doing such acts that threaten the lives of Canadian forestry/O&G workers, you will be treated as a terrorist..........PET had no problem deploying the army after all during the FLQ crisis for a group that started off torching mailboxes....

Yes they are considered terrorist acts.....per the criminal code: If such “politically active groups” spike trees or sabotage equipment (in such a way to make it unsafe), or blow-up oil and gas pipelines and facilities, it is by the definition of the current Criminal Code terrorism…….inversely if another group chains themselves to trees or blocks road access to facilities, for example, it’s not terrorism…….

Google is your friend.....

Not the slightest, and had a similar conversation with Waldo several years ago in the Anonymous/Vic Towes thread, pre-Snowden, and was called a tin-foil hat wearer.....I understand quite clearly laws encompassing both intelligence gathering and sharing, by both the DND and CSIS....not duped the slightest. And no, not worried the slightest about the Government "checking me out", but have noticed a lot of "guests" reading the anti Israel threads in the wee hours of the morning