Derek 2.0

No, I'm not.........as gone over numerous times, "stealth" covers more than just radar cross section, but IR signature (The F-35 uses its fuel as a heat sink, the F-22 not so much) and electronic emissions (The F-22 avionics amount to several 386 computers, contrasted with the F-35 numerous quad processors etc).

"Non-real world circumstances"...........would that include an F-16 with no under wing weapons or fuel tanks versus a developmental F-35 with no combat suite? Forgetting the F-35, how do other 4th/4.5 generation aircraft compare to the F-22.........since the F-22 now appears to be your suggested benchmark?

The ~140 pound reference is the current bottom limit on all USAF fighter aircraft (starting page 5 of the pdf), likewise the restrictions on the NACES ejection seats used in USN aircraft (like the Hornet) on page 6, all restrictions born out of the use of helmets made heavier with the use of night vision and helmet mounted displays. Starting page 7, reference is made to the ACES 5 seat that will be retrofitted to older legacy aircraft and the new mk16 seat for the F-35, both with a lowered limit of 103 lbs........as demonstrated in testing, from the story you linked, the lowered limit (below the stated ~140 lbs) of both seats would pose serious risk (a broken neck) for pilots wearing bulky helmets.............in the ensuing pages, it goes on to demonstrate that there is little data for larger pilots ejecting well wearing NVG/HMDs (heavier helmets), but what is know is that upwards of ~25% of ejections result in death or serious injury(page 11).........as noted, ejecting from an aircraft is dangerous, and always has been, but the risk is accepted vice the alternative.

Again, that is not the case, as demonstrated, the F-35 is "better" then the aircraft that it replaces, likewise, is "stealthier" then the F-22, so much so, the decades long dominant F-15 (with its massive, powerful radar) is unable to even track the F-35.....as recently demonstrated.......An opponent can't kill the F-35 if it can't see it.

I'm not ignoring it, as it would clearly impact (typically) smaller female pilots and those serving in the various Asian forces............addressing this issue is no different then what the USAF did in the 90s to increase the top and bottom weight/height limits of aircrew with the ACES II ejection seat.

I hadn't seen the post, but with reading it, you're continuing to rehash the same point(s) already addressed..........The F-35 was never marketed as superior to the F-22 in aerial combat, as I said, if they could make it affordable, restarting F-22 production with modern (F-35 avionics and computing power) could be a very real solution to the USAF aging F-15 fleets........ I do notice the F-35 critics have yet to address the mock aerial combat between the F-35 and F-15E.......In which the decades long dominant F-15, only bested by the F-22, was unable to even find the F-35........

Of course not, as market instability is a fact of life.............I don't think Brexit, as outlined in the topical thread, will have a long term negative effect on the markets.......hence little effect on the F-35.......of course if the UK purchase F-35As for the RAF versus the F-35Bs it would reduce the overall purchase price for them.

And the article would be misleading, as its speaking to risk assessments (with "crash dummies") done several years ago (we then had countless pages on the subject in one of the threads) during testing done on the F-35's seats to determine to bottom weight limit...........risk of (neck) injury is present where any pilot, wearing a heavy helmet (with a helmet mounted display or even night vision goggles) is forced to eject, and that includes pilots flying our current Hornets (Super Hornet, Eagles, Eurofighter etc)........ At the end of the day, ejecting from a moving aircraft is dangerous.

The force of the ejection effects the human body, not what its wearing........the 140 pound limit is a naked weight, not including under clothes, flight suit, boots, helmet etc....its a moot point for Canada (or Australia) as we already have such a weight limit......smaller pilots would go elsewhere (multi engine or rotary) or start eating carbs.........the program will solve said issue because it will have a greater effect on Asian forces with a greater number of smaller personal. Light (or heavy) pilots, likewise short or tall, are just limited to the actual seat and aircraft specs............for example, a 6' 5" pilot with long legs, a seated measure from the tailbone to the knees, would be restricted from flying fighters, but a 6'5" pilot with his height in the torso wouldn't.

Without a doubt, but you can be certain the countless headquarters and supporting units associated were the combat formations have no staff shortages......

Actually the story you're thinking about involved the West Germans and several other European NATO members that threatened to scupper a trade deal with the PET government over his cuts to European defense.........so we bought Leopard tanks.

It could, but of course the economic impact of BREXIT is but a short-medium term uncertainty........none the less, a decreased pound could be offset by a split purchase resulting in a mixed fleet for the RAF and RN FAA......a mixed fleet of F-35s.

The ~140 lbs weight limitation on the F-35 seat is the same current limitation on our current Hornets and the Super Hornet........in one of the other threads (I think in discussion with you, but it could have been OGFT) I provided a graphic of the "impact" of the bottom weight limitations for USAF service.......IIRC, it would effect ~5% of males and ~15% of females, granted it would likely have a greater impact in Asian service......but for Canada, no difference then the current bottom weight limits. Hey now, has the lethal Super Hornet oxygen generation faults been solved yet?

How is sending a retired aircraft to a museum "feeding the gap"? The RCAF has been retiring Hornets no longer suitable to fly for decades now.....so become "gate guards", some become static training aides and some become beer cans and razors.

Point of order/clarification (since I assume you're talking about me), I didn't suggest "a significantly downsized army" (that is subjective I guess), but a reorganized army, eliminating duplication, top heaviness and a central focus on fighting World War III in central Europe. Granted I didn't go into as much detail as we've (Army Guy and I anyways) gone in other threads, but as has been discussed in other threads my "reduction" would see our current Army's ORBAT go from: -3x regular force Mechanized Brigade Groups centered around: - 1x Infantry Regiment, comprised of 3x battalions (2x Mechanized & 1x "Light"), with each battalions comprised of 3x rifle companies, 1x combat support company and 1x administration company - 1x Armored Regiment - 1x Artillery Regiment - 1x Combat Engineer Regiment - 1x Service Battalion - 1x Headquarters Minus CSOR/JTF-2, the reserves and various other headquarters, the about is the gist of our current army's combat formations. Of it, I would transition from regular force to reserve 3 of the 9 current infantry battalions (in this case 3 of 6 Mech Battalions) and reduce the other Regiments (Artillery, Engineers etc) in each Brigade by ~1/3, again putting said resources to the reserves. Well doing that, to the three remaining Mech battalions, I would add one additional Mech rifle company, bringing each battalion to a new strength of 4x Mech companies (up from 3x). In addition, the 3x "light" Battalions, the Canadian Special Operations Regiment and the JTF-2 would form the nucleus of our own (Light infantry/Special Forces) "Commando Brigade" (based off the Royal Marines), a light force intended for rescuing Canadians overseas, supporting the Canadian Rangers in the Arctic, international and domestic disaster response, training missions involving partner nations requesting such aide and of course being able (short term) to be used to "kick down a proverbial door", be it UN sponsored "Peacemaking", with NATO or in a coalition with other allies. In short, we would go from 3x regular force Mech Brigades and a Special forces group, to 3x combined regular/reserve force Mech Brigade groups and a "Commando Brigade" comprised of light infantry, special forces, sailors and airmen.......this of course would result in the reduction of several thousand regular force army personal through attrition, all the while, adding: -approx 500 personal to the RCAF, forming a new tactical/medium lift/CSAR helicopter squadron to support the above mentioned "Commando" group, in addition to several hundred more members to increase the strength of the current 427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron -approx ~500-1000 personal to the RCN to support the operation of several LHDs and several forward afloat staging bases , essentially large commercial vessels that could support operations overseas, everything from disaster to rescuing Canadians from a nation under civil unrest. Readers digest, my proposal would essentially shift resources from what we currently have to other priorities that will likely reflect the future requirements of the 21st century, well keeping the majority of the forces largely as is.

Clearly the only one in this conversation hung up with a prejudice is you......and the "countless people", that know as much about this case, as you or I. I know what I don't know, what's your problem (and the "countless people") ?

The NRA's response with regards to the Minnesota shooting: The entire message:

For sure, with the media, they require a nice tight box to put every category of event into.

I suggest you calm your tits before you accuse me of being a bigot As I said, once all the facts are known, if the (Asian) police officer is found guilty of wrongdoing I'm sure he'll be charged.......if it turns into another Ferguson, then he won't be......a very simple concept devoid of your childish outburst.

You've, along with many others, suggested this is racially motivated......in a community where blacks are committing the majority of crimes, I'd fully expect a police officer to be more guarded when dealing with a young black man then an elderly Chinese women.

Colion Noir spoke to both shootings......a black NRA spokesman.

He could have, as its not yet clear as to what transpired before he got shot.....I'll revert back to the Ferguson shooting.

Its sounds like he also did a tour overseas.......there are plenty of US veterans, including those that have committed serious crimes in Texas.......Without seeing the CNN anchor's comments, I would hope his intent was to calm fears and not paint the BLM protesters with the same brush with the "terrorism" moniker.

Could be, it sounds like they found explosives in his home.

Could be........or ISIS trained.....or played a bunch of video games, who knows?