F-35 Purchase

[Guest Derek L]

Perhaps a trip to the airport is in order so that we're all on the same page as to what an aircraft is.

Indeed, and I’ll give punked credit, he at least admits he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

[DogOnPorch]

Indeed, and I’ll give punked credit, he at least admits he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

It's also pretty much impossible to tell if an aircraft will do well for the money paid. The P-38 Lightning (another Lockheed design) for example, started it's WW2 career (F model) as a real dog. By 1944, the L model was out...different story altogether. One of the best and deadliest fighters of the War.

[Guest Derek L]

It's also pretty much impossible to tell if an aircraft will do well for the money paid. The P-38 Lightning (another Lockheed design) for example, started it's WW2 career (F model) as a real dog. By 1944, the L model was out...different story altogether. One of the best and deadliest fighters of the War.

Perhaps at one point, but in terms of avionics and flight characteristics, both Lockheed and Boeing knew exactly how their X-planes would fly prior to completing the first prototypes………..the ultimate question today is always one of funding:

No bucks, No Buck Rogers:

[DogOnPorch]

Perhaps at one point, but in terms of avionics and flight characteristics, both Lockheed and Boeing knew exactly how their X-planes would fly prior to completing the first prototypes………..the ultimate question today is always one of funding:

No bucks, No Buck Rogers:

Good movie...but, not too accurate.

The rub is you never know what the other guy might have up the ol' sleave. The Brewster Buffalo was thought to be quite the machine until it actually went into combat. Same with the Bell P-39. Or worse...the P-400. As the pilots called it...a P-40 with a Zero on its tail. But other tubs triumphed...like the delightful F-4 Wildcat and the ever deadlier F-6 Hellcat.

Edited May 9, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

Good movie...but, not too accurate.

The rub is you never know what the other guy might have up the ol' sleave. The Brewster Buffalo was thought to be quite the machine until it actually went into combat. Same with the Bell P-39. Or worse...the P-400. As the pilots called it...a P-40 with a Zero on its tail. But other tubs triumphed...like the delightful F-4 Wildcat and the ever deadlier F-6 Hellcat.

And the examples you cite were obviously designed longed before modern engineering techniques and computers……….Apples and oranges really.

[DogOnPorch]

And the examples you cite were obviously designed longed before modern engineering techniques and computers……….Apples and oranges really.

Perhaps....but, in theory, the other guy is also using the same methods. I'm just saying that history doesn't lie. B-17 = Good. He-177 = Bad. Both had their share of teething problems. The He-177's just never went away. Prone to blowing-up in midair...lol. Pilot quality is paramount, though. An excellent pilot can make a crappy machine become a killer.

[DogOnPorch]

Oh...a jingoistic video...almost forgot. An He-177 isn't some sort of car part, waldo.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh...a jingoistic video...almost forgot.

Thank you for the jingoistic video...it was swell! Lots more exciting than videos about free heroin injection sites.

Edited May 9, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Thank you for the jingoistic video...it was swell! Lots more exciting than videos about free heroin injection sites.

I'll say. Plus, my overly compassionate daughter is involved in 'cleaning-up East Vancouver' one idiot at a time. But...she means well. I'd rather talk aircraft or ships...or trains for that matter. Normal sheeeet.

[waldo]

This is not your daddy’s Link 16.

buddy... it was you... you... who brought up "Link 16". It was your "ta da"!

sorry to rain all over it! I see you haven't even attempted to counter the MIDS reference I made, hey? Is there a problem?

[waldo]

Noticed you omitted this part:

So our initial aircraft, not even enough to form a squadron, and as I addressed several months ago, and will equip the RCAF F-35 operational test and evaluation flight, won’t be combat capable until after we’ve retired our Hornets

no, no... let me draw you a map! Ya see, your much vaunted "Link 16"... your "ta da", on the old unrealistic, overly optimistic, nowhere-in-hell gonna make it, JSFail schedule, "Link 16" wasn't even in the picture until 2019. Even with you accept the wild speculation that 2019 is the new "sweet spot", does that mean your "ta da Link 16" flows through 3 years later!

but like I said, you claim to be so tapped in, how about an insider's take on Lockheed Martin's JSFail delivery of your "ta da". Sure you can!

[waldo]

Indeed, and I’ll give punked credit, he at least admits he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

and you're one of the biggest posers around here! How does it feel to be continually trumped by the power of my googly?

[bush_cheney2004]

and you're one of the biggest posers around here! How does it feel to be continually trumped by the power of my googly?

Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) is an American multinational corporation which provides Internet-related products and services, including Internet search.....

[Guest Derek L]

buddy... it was you... you... who brought up "Link 16". It was your "ta da"!

sorry to rain all over it! I see you haven't even attempted to counter the MIDS reference I made, hey? Is there a problem?

And what was my referencing Link 16 in response to?

[Guest Derek L]

no, no... let me draw you a map! Ya see, your much vaunted "Link 16"... your "ta da", on the old unrealistic, overly optimistic, nowhere-in-hell gonna make it, JSFail schedule, "Link 16" wasn't even in the picture until 2019. Even with you accept the wild speculation that 2019 is the new "sweet spot", does that mean your "ta da Link 16" flows through 3 years later!

but like I said, you claim to be so tapped in, how about an insider's take on Lockheed Martin's JSFail delivery of your "ta da". Sure you can!

Link 16 has been in use for decades....What are you talking about? You sound hysterical

[Guest Derek L]

and you're one of the biggest posers around here! How does it feel to be continually trumped by the power of my googly?

Zing, someone has been to the gym.

[bush_cheney2004]

[Guest Derek L]

Two errors……….Air Force members sleeping in tents? Not Hornet pilots……….Second error, not even 20 seconds in reference to the AIR DET’s

That’s more like it:

Helicopter Detachment

[waldo]

buddy... it was you... you... who brought up "Link 16". It was your "ta da"!

sorry to rain all over it! I see you haven't even attempted to counter the MIDS reference I made, hey? Is there a problem?

And what was my referencing Link 16 in response to?

yes, a recap is in order: you didn't like and couldn't counter the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee testimony... the one that trumped your/Harper Conservatives JSFail F-35 interoperability false narrative. You dissed the NATO Commander for being French, stating he didn't know what he was talking about! You proceeded to beak-off about a single fighter jet interoperability. In the face of the many varied types of fighter jets within NATO member countries, I highlighted your bizzaro world statement had no foundation in reality. I challenged you, repeatedly, over and over again, to counter the NATO Commander's statements... to cite/present the, "current NATO standard(s) for a single fighter jet interoperability". Under the intense waldo pressure, you finally caved and provided your nonsensical response... "Link 16"! Data communications between varied types of fighter jets and AWACS/ground/ship support. That's what your referencing "Link 16" was in response to! Yup, fer sure... that "Link 16" reference certainly does counter the NATO Commanders House of Commons Defence Committee testimony!

oh wait, I forgot one lil' piece... where you challenged my reference to MIDS... and, where you started playing your juvenile guessing/teaser charade. You know, where you don't actually state anything, while looking the fool! Of course, I equally challenged you to counter the MIDS reference with something other than your bluster... still waiting - is there a (continued) problem?

[waldo]

no, no... let me draw you a map! Ya see, your much vaunted "Link 16"... your "ta da", on the old unrealistic, overly optimistic, nowhere-in-hell gonna make it, JSFail schedule, "Link 16" wasn't even in the picture until 2019. Even with you accept the wild speculation that 2019 is the new "sweet spot", does that mean your "ta da Link 16" flows through 3 years later!

but like I said, you claim to be so tapped in, how about an insider's take on Lockheed Martin's JSFail delivery of your "ta da". Sure you can!

Link 16 has been in use for decades....What are you talking about? You sound hysterical

that's right, I forgot... you continually feign ignorance when you're trumped. I'll type slower for you. The linked reference provided to you (which you won't admit to reading), highlighted the delayed nature of integration of your "ta da Link 16" into the JSFail F-35... stated as being available within 2019 produced planes. Of course, as I pointed out, that presumed upon 2016 delivery of the initial batch... since that ain't happening, since the whole schedule shifted out, once again, with the new "sweet spot" in 2019/2020, let's shift it all out 3/4 years... which puts your "ta da Link 16" available in 2023/2024!

[waldo]

Zing, someone has been to the gym.

perfect! Clearly, ya got nuthin when that's the level you stoop to!

[Guest Derek L]

yes, a recap is in order: you didn't like and couldn't counter the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee testimony... the one that trumped your/Harper Conservatives JSFail F-35 interoperability false narrative. You dissed the NATO Commander for being French, stating he didn't know what he was talking about! You proceeded to beak-off about a single fighter jet interoperability. In the face of the many varied types of fighter jets within NATO member countries, I highlighted your bizzaro world statement had no foundation in reality. I challenged you, repeatedly, over and over again, to counter the NATO Commander's statements... to cite/present the, "current NATO standard(s) for a single fighter jet interoperability". Under the intense waldo pressure, you finally caved and provided your nonsensical response... "Link 16"! Data communications between varied types of fighter jets and AWACS/ground/ship support. That's what your referencing "Link 16" was in response to! Yup, fer sure... that "Link 16" reference certainly does counter the NATO Commanders House of Commons Defence Committee testimony!

oh wait, I forgot one lil' piece... where you challenged my reference to MIDS... and, where you started playing your juvenile guessing/teaser charade. You know, where you don't actually state anything, while looking the fool! Of course, I equally challenged you to counter the MIDS reference with something other than your bluster... still waiting - is there a (continued) problem?

But what about your Google-Fu?

[Guest Derek L]

that's right, I forgot... you continually feign ignorance when you're trumped. I'll type slower for you. The linked reference provided to you (which you won't admit to reading), highlighted the delayed nature of integration of your "ta da Link 16" into the JSFail F-35... stated as being available within 2019 produced planes. Of course, as I pointed out, that presumed upon 2016 delivery of the initial batch... since that ain't happening, since the whole schedule shifted out, once again, with the new "sweet spot" in 2019/2020, let's shift it all out 3/4 years... which puts your "ta da Link 16" available in 2023/2024!

Oh, they'll have Link 16 & Link 22 from the onset......But that's not what we're talking about.

[waldo]

But what about your Google-Fu?

hey now... you should have led with that... not your "ta da Link 16". Oh wait, why would they still be putting "Link 16" into the JSFail F-35s? In any case, it's only fitting you place your trust/faith in a vapourware product... within the vapourware program, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

hey now... you should have led with that... not your "ta da Link 16". Oh wait, why would they still be putting "Link 16" into the JSFail F-35s? In any case, it's only fitting you place your trust/faith in a vapourware product... within the vapourware program, hey?

As I said, the reference to Link 16 was in response to your question about current NATO interoperability standards relating to coalition air forces……….As for the continued use and refinement of Link 16 to Link 22 standards, that’s quite obvious, to communicate with forces lacking MADL in the interim.