Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> General Board >> First F-35 fighter jet crash http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1538261846 Message started by Bobby on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 8:57am

Title: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 8:57am

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/f35-crash-lockheed-martin-lightning-ii-eject-aviation-accidents-incidents-south-carolina-a8560756.html

First F-35 fighter jet crash:
Mystery fault forces pilot to eject over South Carolina

The stealth fighter jet was used by the United States in combat this week for the first time against Taliban in Afghanistan.

A US military fighter jet sent smoke billowing into the sky after it suffered the first crash in the aircraft’s operational history.

The pilot, who was the only person on board the Lockheed Martin F-35B, was being examined for injuries on Friday after safely ejecting.

The reason for the crash near the Marine Corps Air Station in Beaufort, South Carolina, is said to be under investigation.
Read more

Israel becomes first country to use US-made F-35 stealth fighter

The aircraft, a short takeoff and landing version of the F-35, crashed just before 12pm local time.

It was the first crash of an F-35 fighter jet since the aircraft became operational in 2006, according to a military official who wished to remain anonymous.

The incident also marked the first time a pilot had ejected from an F-35B.

The F-35B stealth fighter jet was used by the United States in combat this week for the first time against the Taliban in Afghanistan, after taking off from an amphibious assault ship in the Arabian Sea.

Crash scene.

Israeli F-35 flying over Beirut.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 8:59am

It was just on TV now.
Many buyers such as Australia are very worried by this crash.
That's $100 million up in smoke.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:02am

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 8:59am:

It was just on TV now.
Many buyers such as Australia are very worried by this crash.
That's $100 million up in smoke.

yes another one could crash in 12 years time...…. ;)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Ye Grappler on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:04am

Hmm - and the first just flew on to the UK's latest carrier.... Britannia Rules The Waves!

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:08am

I blame Islam.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:13am

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:02am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 8:59am:

It was just on TV now.
Many buyers such as Australia are very worried by this crash.
That's $100 million up in smoke.

yes another one could crash in 12 years time...…. ;)

Who's little Bobby & why is he drunk?
That's just the sort of silly picture Monk would post.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Ye Grappler on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:13am

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:08am:

I blame Islam.

You got that right..... South Carolina is rife with them.... did you know that aerial photos of the South Carolina tidewater area shows that it is a meteor impact field filled with craters... hence the rivers and creeks and billabongs and such....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyy_A4wNQa8

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:18am

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:08am:

I blame Islam.

You got that right.....

It's fighting Islam that has caused us to spend so much money on these fighter jets -
so yes - it's because of Islam.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:22am

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:02am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 8:59am:

It was just on TV now.
Many buyers such as Australia are very worried by this crash.
That's $100 million up in smoke.

yes another one could crash in 12 years time...…. ;)

Who's little Bobby & why is he drunk?
That's just the sort of silly picture Monk would post.

If I tell u, why would u buy the book..... I cant do that to the author :D

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:25am

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:22am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:02am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 8:59am:

It was just on TV now.
Many buyers such as Australia are very worried by this crash.
That's $100 million up in smoke.

yes another one could crash in 12 years time...…. ;)

Who's little Bobby & why is he drunk?
That's just the sort of silly picture Monk would post.

If I tell u, why would u buy the book..... I cant do that to the author :D

Did Monk put you up to this?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:29am

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:18am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:08am:

I blame Islam.

You got that right.....

It's fighting Islam that has caused us to spend so much money on these fighter jets -
so yes - it's because of Islam.

So your saying Australia wouldn't have a Airforce if Islam wasn't militant ? :D

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:39am

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:29am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:18am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:08am:

I blame Islam.

You got that right.....

It's fighting Islam that has caused us to spend so much money on these fighter jets -
so yes - it's because of Islam.

So your saying Australia wouldn't have a Airforce if Islam wasn't militant ? :D

That's right - we will only ever fight Islamic militants with these jets.
Israel has already used them to bomb targets in Syria
although they were Syrian Govt. targets.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/israels-f-35s-saw-combat-in-syrian-air-war-that-hit-russian-defenses-2018-5?r=US&IR=T

Israel's F-35s reportedly saw combat in a raging Syrian air war that smashed Russian defences
Alex Lockie
May 23, 2018, 12:50 AM

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:58am

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:25am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:22am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:02am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 8:59am:

It was just on TV now.
Many buyers such as Australia are very worried by this crash.
That's $100 million up in smoke.

yes another one could crash in 12 years time...…. ;)

Who's little Bobby & why is he drunk?
That's just the sort of silly picture Monk would post.

If I tell u, why would u buy the book..... I cant do that to the author :D

Did Monk put you up to this?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :P ::)
I forgot about the picture as u cant see it on this forum..... so it took u 3 months to notice it.... HAL would be disappointed.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:02am

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:39am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:29am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:18am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:08am:

I blame Islam.

You got that right.....

It's fighting Islam that has caused us to spend so much money on these fighter jets -
so yes - it's because of Islam.

So your saying Australia wouldn't have a Airforce if Islam wasn't militant ? :D

ahh and only fight those Islamic that r hoarding oil...…..
We tend to ignore all the other oppressive governments out there.
The only time we had to defend our country was it Islam Bobby ? ;)
Our closest neighbour that r slaughtering ppl is a Buddhist country , we wont help those that r being slaughtered ?
No oil i guess :D

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:20am

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:58am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:25am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:22am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:02am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 8:59am:

It was just on TV now.
Many buyers such as Australia are very worried by this crash.
That's $100 million up in smoke.

yes another one could crash in 12 years time...…. ;)

Who's little Bobby & why is he drunk?
That's just the sort of silly picture Monk would post.

If I tell u, why would u buy the book..... I cant do that to the author :D

Did Monk put you up to this?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :P ::)
I forgot about the picture as u cant see it on this forum..... so it took u 3 months to notice it.... HAL would be disappointed.

I noticed it at Monk's sewer site & then saw it here.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:23am

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:20am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:58am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:25am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:22am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:02am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 8:59am:

It was just on TV now.
Many buyers such as Australia are very worried by this crash.
That's $100 million up in smoke.

yes another one could crash in 12 years time...…. ;)

Who's little Bobby & why is he drunk?
That's just the sort of silly picture Monk would post.

If I tell u, why would u buy the book..... I cant do that to the author :D

Did Monk put you up to this?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :P ::)
I forgot about the picture as u cant see it on this forum..... so it took u 3 months to notice it.... HAL would be disappointed.

I noticed it at Monk's sewer site & then saw it here.

yes well u wouldn't see it at FD's sewer site would ya :D

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:26am

Thanks - Monk's puppet - for taking an important thread off topic.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:26am

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by cods on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:31am

really glad no one killed.....

when the pilot ejects... the plane is left to crash into god knows where I presume >:( >:(

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:35am

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:02am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 8:59am:

It was just on TV now.
Many buyers such as Australia are very worried by this crash.
That's $100 million up in smoke.

yes another one could crash in 12 years time...…. ;)

Who's little Bobby & why is he drunk?
That's just the sort of silly picture Monk would post.

who was it that took this off topic Bobby ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
(maybe u should of brought this up in Relations MRB)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:37am

cods wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:31am:

really glad no one killed.....

when the pilot ejects... the plane is left to crash into god knows where I presume >:( >:(

just like every plane in the sky with a ejection seat ;)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by cods on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:57am

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:37am:

cods wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:31am:

really glad no one killed.....

when the pilot ejects... the plane is left to crash into god knows where I presume >:( >:(

just like every plane in the sky with a ejection seat ;)

how many have you been on with one of those? :)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 11:14am

cods wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:57am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:37am:

cods wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:31am:

really glad no one killed.....

when the pilot ejects... the plane is left to crash into god knows where I presume >:( >:(

just like every plane in the sky with a ejection seat ;)

how many have you been on with one of those? :)

was years ago but around 10, and worked around them a lot.
They can really mess up anyone that has to use them.

Pilots get special wrist watch hat give way so their hands don't get ripped off if they catch on something.
I had a friend about 6ft 2in that lost 2 inches in height after using one... was in hospital about 4 months.
Though if only one plane in 12 years has gone down and over friendly space that's pretty good.
Also the USA air force r known for poor maintenance so 12 years is amazing really :)
When we bought second hand F111 off of USA they found whole Toolboxes left in the planes in the body work for example.

This accident its not known if pilot error or Maintenance error or Manufacturer error, until then its just a alarmist piece ;)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by cods on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 12:59pm

you work for defence then?..
thats interesting....

not many people would have ev er had that experience....

It would not sit well with any country to lose aircraft and possibly pilots in peace time..

I find it hard to believe America wouldnt look after and maintain its airplanes.... >:(

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 1:05pm

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:26am:

Thanks - Monk's puppet - for taking an important thread off topic.

That's the sort of false accusation Agnes posts. Who posted this Bobby:

Quote:

Who's little Bobby & why is he drunk?
That's just the sort of silly picture Monk would post.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 1:43pm

Aussie wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 1:05pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:26am:

Thanks - Monk's puppet - for taking an important thread off topic.

That's the sort of false accusation Agnes posts. Who posted this Bobby:

Quote:

Who's little Bobby & why is he drunk?
That's just the sort of silly picture Monk would post.

hi Aussie,
any comment about the first F-35 fighter jet crash?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 1:46pm

No, you have made all the clever not obvious ones.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 2:10pm

Aussie wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 1:46pm:

No, you have made all the clever not obvious ones.

I'm glad you appreciate my cleverness.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 5:37pm

It’s only a fluff piece anyway, no mention of the cause, so not really a important thread

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 8:53pm

We lost more that a few f-111s and their pilots in peace time. They were a fantastic aircraft and it was sad to see them go. We have nothing like them anymore and the f-35 will not fill their role.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:38pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 8:53pm:

We lost more that a few f-111s and their pilots in peace time. They were a fantastic aircraft and it was sad to see them go. We have nothing like them anymore and the f-35 will not fill their role.

True - but the F35 is a stealth aircraft so it's hard to pick up on radars
whereas the F111 could be seen from 100s of miles away.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:48pm

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:38pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 8:53pm:

We lost more that a few f-111s and their pilots in peace time. They were a fantastic aircraft and it was sad to see them go. We have nothing like them anymore and the f-35 will not fill their role.

True - but the F35 is a stealth aircraft so it's hard to pick up on radars
whereas the F111 could be seen from 100s of miles away.

And?? What has that got to do with your crash post? The F-111 had more than it's share of ill fortune but was an outstanding aircraft. I'm sorry it was taken out of service, there were more than enough spares in Arizona for it to fly another decade or more.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:05pm

Hi CC,
the F111 couldn't survive the modern battlefield.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/f35-stealth-fighters-in-combat-for-the-first-time/news-story/fd31e1532aca87ae1e1ab46a584decce

F-35 stealth fighters in combat for the first time

THE defeat of a Russian air defence weapon in Syria may now have a cause: Israel has revealed it has unleashed its F-35 strike fighters for the first time.
Jamie Seidel
News Corp Australia NetworkMay 24, 20189:18pm

SYRIA insisted it could defend itself. Russia said it had provided the means.
But Israel’s air strikes have been spectacularly successful. Now we know why.

Israel’s air force commander has said recent strikes against Iranian targets in and around the Syrian capital of Damascus were conducted by the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter.

It’s the first time the new combat jet has gone into action anywhere in the world.

“The F-35 squadron has become an operational squadron,” Major General Amikam Norkin told Haaretz earlier this week.

“We are flying the F-35 all over the Middle East and have already attacked twice on two different fronts.”

Israel has dubbed its version of the F-35 the “Adir” (meaning ‘mighty one’).

Haarets says it has seen images of the F-35 flying over Beirut in Lebanon. It also says Major Norkin said the stealth fighter did not participate in the most recent air raids last week. But it did during the previous two.

The newspaper says more than 100 missiles have been fired — in vain — by Syrian air defences.

It’s an indication the F-35 is coming out on top in its battle against Russian-built defences.

RUSSIAN AGAINST US TECHNOLOGY

The prospect of the F-35 flying through some of Syria’s most defended air space raises the likelihood that it has faced some of Russia’s best export weaponry — and defeated it.

Damascus is one of the most heavily protected cities in the world.

It’s armed with a variety of missile systems — both new and old — by its ally, Russia.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:42pm

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:05pm:

Yes it could if it was used in it's primary role as an under the radar strike aircraft. It was called the "Pig" for a reason. It could fly from Darwin to Jakarta and back under the radar. I was blessed to watch the F-111 doing terrain following around Kyogle. Magnificent aircraft.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:55pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:42pm:

It sure was a magnificent aircraft.
For the cost of a a couple of F35s they probably could have kept a whole squadron
of F111s in service for a long time.
It would have been money better spent.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 5:17am

hear hear and we should of kept the Canberra bombers and some mustangs as well, and refurnished a few sopwith camels too ;)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:09am

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 5:17am:

hear hear and we should of kept the Canberra bombers and some mustangs as well, and refurnished a few sopwith camels too ;)

Don't be such a smart arse.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:34am

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:09am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 5:17am:

hear hear and we should of kept the Canberra bombers and some mustangs as well, and refurnished a few sopwith camels too ;)

Don't be such a smart arse.

well don't be such a dumm ass

F111's as a plane where great for their day... which was about 50 years ago, …….. if u had to personally go into battle Bobby and put your life on the line would u rather be in a F111 or a F35 ?
if u want our pilots to be in F111 instead maybe it's u that need a good hanging :D :D

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:48am

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:34am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:09am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 5:17am:

hear hear and we should of kept the Canberra bombers and some mustangs as well, and refurnished a few sopwith camels too ;)

Don't be such a smart arse.

But a sopwith camel?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:56am

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:48am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:34am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:09am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 5:17am:

hear hear and we should of kept the Canberra bombers and some mustangs as well, and refurnished a few sopwith camels too ;)

Don't be such a smart arse.

But a sopwith camel?

well if u want to send our pilots to war in a old plane , might as well be a camel.... at least when they get shot down it wont cost us Millions..... It's all about the money isn't it Bobby ? ;)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by red baron on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:06am

It is important to have first class front line aircraft to defend our Country

Never take your freedom for granted

There are many jealous Countries that look at our vast expanse of Country with natural riches and they look at it with envy

I don't and have never trusted Indonesia

That was why we bought the F-1-11s because they could fly to Indonesia drop a payload and be able to make the return trip ( served in the R.A.A.F. for 6 years)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:28am

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:56am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:48am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:34am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:09am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 5:17am:

hear hear and we should of kept the Canberra bombers and some mustangs as well, and refurnished a few sopwith camels too ;)

Don't be such a smart arse.

But a sopwith camel?

well if u want to send our pilots to war in a old plane , might as well be a camel.... at least when they get shot down it wont cost us Millions..... It's all about the money isn't it Bobby ? ;)

You don't know what you're talking about.
The F111s were upgraded to be modern.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:29am

red baron wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:06am:

Well said - we have lost that capability now.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:27am

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:28am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:56am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:48am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:34am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:09am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 5:17am:

hear hear and we should of kept the Canberra bombers and some mustangs as well, and refurnished a few sopwith camels too ;)

Don't be such a smart arse.

But a sopwith camel?

well if u want to send our pilots to war in a old plane , might as well be a camel.... at least when they get shot down it wont cost us Millions..... It's all about the money isn't it Bobby ? ;)

You don't know what you're talking about.
The F111s were upgraded to be modern.

U mean when we made them in F111c "s.... In the eighties...…...ALmost 40 years ago and I think the last upgrades they did where in the 90's so 30 years ago...…… not really modern and I think they decided to scrap them when the yanks scraped theirs and ours where snapping off wings and such
There r no new strike planes like the F111 unfortunately but that cant be a excuse to use a old plane.
Again if u went to war would u rather be in a F111 or a F35 ? ;)
as red said , we want to best and unfortunately the F111 is just to old ,although I think them and the tomcat r the best looking fighters the yanks ever made. ;)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:55am

Hippy,
The yanks are still using the B52s.
It depends on any metal fatigue
which can be measured.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:01am

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:55am:

Hippy,
The yanks are still using the B52s.
It depends on any metal fatigue
which can be measured.

and they just fly high and drop bomb's not enter combat.….
The F111 is a strike fighter... how many of them do the yanks still use ?
Beside the aardvarks have been decommissioned about 15 years I think, its a no where argument :0 they will never come back, just like the mustang and camels..... ;)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bias_2012 on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:37am

The pilot of an F35 just watches a computer screen, any error messages, he just bails out, no time to do anything else

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:40am

Bias_2012 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:37am:

The pilot of an F35 just watches a computer screen, any error messages, he just bails out, no time to do anything else

and thankfully only one has had to do that in 12 years ;)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:52am

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:01am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:55am:

Hippy,
The yanks are still using the B52s.
It depends on any metal fatigue
which can be measured.

You have a point.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bias_2012 on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:55am

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:40am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:37am:

The pilot of an F35 just watches a computer screen, any error messages, he just bails out, no time to do anything else

and thankfully only one has had to do that in 12 years ;)

Yep, it's safe enough for the RAAF to have a quota of female fighter pilots now, it still a mens' club flying fighter jets ;)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by tickleandrose on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 12:05pm

The F35s is pretty much directed at Russia and China. We really dont need F35s to combat ISIS or Taliban. We have much less costing armed drones for those.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Sir lastnail on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 12:12pm

This is probably a better option for us considering we still don't have any aircraft carrier to launch them from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-IbVh1m59I

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by issuevoter on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 1:21pm

I read, somewhere, that the F-35 is likely to be the last manned US fighter plane. Of course there will still be manned aircraft, just not in that capacity.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 4:43pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 12:12pm:

This is probably a better option for us considering we still don't have any aircraft carrier to launch them from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-IbVh1m59I

Hi Nail,
it's all about us being able operate with the Yanks in an F35 team.
We need F35s to do that.
Each plane pilot can see what another pilot is seeing.
The technology is amazing.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 5:01pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 12:12pm:

This is probably a better option for us considering we still don't have any aircraft carrier to launch them from.

Actually, we have two - HMAS CANBERRA and HMAS ADELAIDE. While neither is equipped for the sustained operation of fixed wing aircraft with V/STOL capabilities, they could, in an emergency be used to operate such aircraft if Australia was ever to decide to purchase such an aircraft. While the CANBERRA class are designed as amphibious warfare ships, they do have a flight deck with a ski-jump on the bow. They could not operate CTOL aircraft as there is no provision in them for arrester gear to stop them once they land on the flight deck.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:05pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:08am:

I blame Islam.

And it's common knowledge you're a tool.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:29pm

tickleandrose wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 12:05pm:

The F35s is pretty much directed at Russia and China. We really dont need F35s to combat ISIS or Taliban. We have much less costing armed drones for those.

We won't need F35s for Russia or China ... more like the peril just to our north that we keep giving money to hand over fist.

And the F35s are years behind schedule & have been a bottomless pit for expense with questionable fighter capability and poor range.

Quote:

After years of delays and cost blow-outs, the controversial Joint Strike Fighter has arrived on Australian soil for the first time.

Quote:

Their debut in Australia comes 15 years after the Federal Government first announced that Australia would participate in the "system development and demonstration phase" of the US-led Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter program.

Quote:

The Federal Government is preparing to spend $17 billion on 72 F-35 aircraft, with the first expected to be delivered to Australia in 2018 and enter service in 2020.

It will be over $17billion & still 2 years away from them actually being in service.

I'd say they are more likely than not to become the lemons their critics have already said they are.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-27/joint-strike-fighters-f35-land-in-australia/8308498

Yeah who cares about the cost hey Hippie head? ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:33pm

*SIGH* such ignorance, such foolishness. Leave defence to the experts. Amateurs don't know their arses from their elbows. ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:45pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:33pm:

*SIGH* such ignorance, such foolishness. Leave defence to the experts. Amateurs don't know their arses from their elbows. ::) ::) ::)

Much like your pretense of all knowledge ey? DH.

BTW Noddy since when have our politicians been experts on defense.

Like all the experts on the Collins Class Sub fiasco? ;D

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 7:12pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:45pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:33pm:

*SIGH* such ignorance, such foolishness. Leave defence to the experts. Amateurs don't know their arses from their elbows. ::) ::) ::)

Much like your pretense of all knowledge ey? DH.

BTW Noddy since when have our politicians been experts on defense.

Like all the experts on the Collins Class Sub fiasco? ;D

*SIGH* such ignorance, such foolishness. Leave defence to the experts. Amateurs don't know their arses from their elbows. ::) ::) ::)

The COLLINS class are still one of the largest, quietest, conventional submarines in service around the world. For a first effort at Submarine building, they are not as bad as the media as portrayed them as. The British BTW, the world's experts at design and submarine construction, and welded a hull section on, upside down on their nuclear attack class of submarines, the USA, had to scrap an entire boat on the stocks 'cause the welds were done incorrectly. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:28pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:05pm:

"Under the radar" doesn't work very well anymore, and certainly not against modern fighters. And nobody flies expensive aircraft and even more expensive pilots over a target in a modern battlefield.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:47pm

Stig wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:28pm:

"Under the radar" doesn't work very well anymore, and certainly not against modern fighters. And nobody flies expensive aircraft and even more expensive pilots over a target in a modern battlefield.

Really?
What if the F35 takes out all the SAM sites first and opens the skies for all other aircraft?

Those were the tactics used in the Gulf war 1. ( in 1991)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:50pm

Stig wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:28pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 10:05pm:

"Under the radar" doesn't work very well anymore, and certainly not against modern fighters. And nobody flies expensive aircraft and even more expensive pilots over a target in a modern battlefield.

True but the payload capacity of the F-111 would allow it to carry cruise missiles if it was engineered for it, under the radar for long enough would work very well in that case and fighter cover could be given without refuel 900k on the way there and back. With refuelling... None of out planes can carry the payload of the F-111. Instead of a strike fighter, it should be hailed for what it is, a strike bomber.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:57pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:50pm:

Do we have any cruise missiles?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:03pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:57pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:50pm:

Do we have any cruise missiles?

I don't know, maybe our ships do, but we should and the F-111 hasd the payload capacity to carry them.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:05pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:03pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:57pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:50pm:

Do we have any cruise missiles?

I don't know, maybe our ships do, but we should and the F-111 hasd the payload capacity to carry them.

We'd have to design our own.
I don't know if we're that smart.
I doubt the Yanks would sell us any Tomahawk cruise missiles
even though they are 1980s technology.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:11pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:05pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:03pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:57pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:50pm:

Do we have any cruise missiles?

I don't know, maybe our ships do, but we should and the F-111 hasd the payload capacity to carry them.

We'd have to design our own.
I don't know if we're that smart.
I doubt the Yanks would sell us any Tomahawk cruise missiles
even though they are 1980s technology.

They sell them to the Brits. The yanks don't give us all their tech, we have always had to provide our own to enhance what they sell us.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:20pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:11pm:

They sell them to the Brits. The yanks don't give us all their tech, we have always had to provide our own to enhance what they sell us.

And I think it's more than that -
the Tomahawk uses satellite information to allow
a type of terrain following radar system plus GPS.
We don't have the satellite info & during times of war
the GPS info has a deliberate random error put into it.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:33pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:20pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:11pm:

They sell them to the Brits. The yanks don't give us all their tech, we have always had to provide our own to enhance what they sell us.

We use their GPS now though. That's not a problem unless we dump them as allies. Do you think China and Russia rely on US GPS?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:42pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:33pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:20pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 9:11pm:

They sell them to the Brits. The yanks don't give us all their tech, we have always had to provide our own to enhance what they sell us.

We use their GPS now though. That's not a problem unless we dump them as allies. Do you think China and Russia rely on US GPS?

I think China & Russia have their own GPS satellites.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:13pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:47pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:28pm:

"Under the radar" doesn't work very well anymore, and certainly not against modern fighters. And nobody flies expensive aircraft and even more expensive pilots over a target in a modern battlefield.

Really?
What if the F35 takes out all the SAM sites first and opens the skies for all other aircraft?

Those were the tactics used in the Gulf war 1. ( in 1991)

Didn't stop the brits losing half a dozen Tornados, an aircraft designed to do pretty much what the F-111 does.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:28pm

Stig wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:13pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:47pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:28pm:

"Under the radar" doesn't work very well anymore, and certainly not against modern fighters. And nobody flies expensive aircraft and even more expensive pilots over a target in a modern battlefield.

Really?
What if the F35 takes out all the SAM sites first and opens the skies for all other aircraft?

Those were the tactics used in the Gulf war 1. ( in 1991)

Didn't stop the brits losing half a dozen Tornados, an aircraft designed to do pretty much what the F-111 does.

The f-117 that led the charge was not designed to do the job of the F-111. The F-117 led the bombing to take out radar but Tornadoes are not under the radar strike bombers which is why they needed the radar/anti aircraft batteries taken out by the 117s.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:32pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:28pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:13pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:47pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:28pm:

"Under the radar" doesn't work very well anymore, and certainly not against modern fighters. And nobody flies expensive aircraft and even more expensive pilots over a target in a modern battlefield.

Really?
What if the F35 takes out all the SAM sites first and opens the skies for all other aircraft?

Those were the tactics used in the Gulf war 1. ( in 1991)

Didn't stop the brits losing half a dozen Tornados, an aircraft designed to do pretty much what the F-111 does.

The Tornados went in at low level before all the SAM sites were taken out and were hit by AAA.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:46pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:32pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:28pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:13pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:47pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:28pm:

"Under the radar" doesn't work very well anymore, and certainly not against modern fighters. And nobody flies expensive aircraft and even more expensive pilots over a target in a modern battlefield.

Really?
What if the F35 takes out all the SAM sites first and opens the skies for all other aircraft?

Those were the tactics used in the Gulf war 1. ( in 1991)

Didn't stop the brits losing half a dozen Tornados, an aircraft designed to do pretty much what the F-111 does.

The Tornados went in at low level before all the SAM sites were taken out and were hit by AAA.

The 117s were supposed to destroy the AA radar. They were sent in first. To equate a Tornado with an F-111 that would need air bound radar to detect it as it could fly a couple of 100ft off the ground... I've had them fly over me. They used to do terrain following over the hills around Kyogle.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:02pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:46pm:

True -

That aside -
the problem with the F35s will be the requirement for air tankers.
They are easy to spot on radar and would lead enemy planes straight to our F35s.
If the air tanker are shot down the F35s will run out of fuel
and end up ditched in the sea or wherever.
It's a major weakness.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:04pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:02pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:46pm:

Yep, one missile hit from the ground or air and our range is crippled.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by DonDeeHippy on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 7:45am

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:04pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:02pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:46pm:

Yep, one missile hit from the ground or air and our range is crippled.

yup and 1 missile to the base and no planes at all ;) ;) ;)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 8:23am

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:28pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:13pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:47pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:28pm:

"Under the radar" doesn't work very well anymore, and certainly not against modern fighters. And nobody flies expensive aircraft and even more expensive pilots over a target in a modern battlefield.

Really?
What if the F35 takes out all the SAM sites first and opens the skies for all other aircraft?

Those were the tactics used in the Gulf war 1. ( in 1991)

Didn't stop the brits losing half a dozen Tornados, an aircraft designed to do pretty much what the F-111 does.

They are actually.

Both the Tornado and the F-111 are swing wing aircraft designed for low level strike missions with automated terrain following radar. They were both designed to do pretty much the same thing.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 8:25am

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:32pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:28pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 10:13pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:47pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 8:28pm:

"Under the radar" doesn't work very well anymore, and certainly not against modern fighters. And nobody flies expensive aircraft and even more expensive pilots over a target in a modern battlefield.

Really?
What if the F35 takes out all the SAM sites first and opens the skies for all other aircraft?

Those were the tactics used in the Gulf war 1. ( in 1991)

Didn't stop the brits losing half a dozen Tornados, an aircraft designed to do pretty much what the F-111 does.

The Tornados went in at low level before all the SAM sites were taken out and were hit by AAA.

And that's part of the problem. In any modern conflict against a parallel power you're extremely unlikely to get all the SAMs taken out.

You're also unlikely to get all the enemy fighters. One Tornado was shot down by a Mig-29.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 2:53pm

Stig wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 8:25am:

One Tornado was shot down by a Mig-29.

Luck or the lack of it, invariably plays a huge part in combat and in particular air combat. All that is needed is a second's inattention or distraction in the cockpit and the plane you are flying could be toast. Air combat occurs less frequently now, than in WWII or WWI but the same problems still apply. "Beware the Hun in the Sun," was coined because it was true - the Luftwaffe used to use the position of the sun to hide their aircraft and creep up on their intended victims. Pilots that do not check their six and look sunwards will be bounced by enemy aircraft.

The F-35 addresses this. Partly by using stealth to become nearly invisible to enemy radars and partly through the use of EO (Electro-Optical) systems which allow the aircraft to detect approaching missiles and allows the pilot to "look through" the aircraft to quarters that would normally be invisible to him. No other aircraft in production at the moment has this facility, only the F-35 possesses it.

Most of the detractors of the F-35 do not or will not understand that the present moment there is nothing comparable to the F-35, either in the West or the East. No Russian or Chinese aircraft is as stealthy or possesses the same facilities which make the F-35 their superior.

The RAAF because it has an urgent need for a replacement for it's aged fleet of F/A-18A/Bs needs to purchase the F-35. Unfortunately, it needs to do so early in the production run of the aircraft, when it is more expensive to purchase them than later in the production run when it would be cheaper to buy them ("economies of scale" produce that effect). If instead of purchasing the F/A-18A/Bs replacement in one job lot it spread the purchase out over a decade, the prices would fall dramatically. However, that is not how the ADF operates unfortunately.

Will the F-35 always be superior to Russian/Chinese/Swedish/European aircraft? More than likely not. In 20 years there will be other, newer aircraft on the market. However, we cannot wait 20 years for our replacement aircraft - nor would we necessarily get the other newer aircraft as cheap as we are getting the F-35. Our membership in the US alliance assures us of cheaper FMS (Foreign Military Sales) prices which are significantly cheaper than what are paid commercially for military products. It is the one good thing about being closely allied to the US IMO.

So, think about the now, children, not the future. NOW we need a replacement fighter-bomber, which will replace the F/A-18A/Bs we presently operate and enhance the capabilities of the RAAF. We cannot afford to wait. Simples really.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bojack Horseman on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 2:57pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 30^th, 2018 at 9:08am:

I blame Islam.

Billabongs aren't formed from meteor impacts. They are an Australian term for oxbow lake.
This picture of the Nowitna River, Alaska shows two oxbow lakes – a short one at the bottom of the picture and a longer, more curved one at the middle-right. Furthermore, it can be clearly seen how a third oxbow lake is in the making. The isthmus or bank in the centre of the most prominent meander is very narrow- much narrower than the width of the river. Eventually, the two sections of river on either side of the isthmus break through, and create a new, straighter course. A new river bank then starts to accumulate, sealing off the meander and leaving another oxbow lake.
An oxbow lake is a U-shaped lake that forms when a wide meander from the main stem of a river is cut off, creating a free-standing body of water. This landform is so named for its distinctive curved shape, which resembles the bow pin of an oxbow. I

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:05pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 7:12pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:45pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:33pm:

*SIGH* such ignorance, such foolishness. Leave defence to the experts. Amateurs don't know their arses from their elbows. ::) ::) ::)

Much like your pretense of all knowledge ey? DH.

BTW Noddy since when have our politicians been experts on defense.

Like all the experts on the Collins Class Sub fiasco? ;D

Their ongoing failings & constant upgrade requirements which saw them out of action for long periods make them on a par in the respective time frame as being bottomless money pits.

As for not knowing ones arse from ones elbow I'll take that as being advice from an expert in that dept. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:14pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 2:53pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 8:25am:

One Tornado was shot down by a Mig-29.

Oh dear what a dill ....

15 years we have been involved in the F35 program

we signed for 48 under LABOR & now 72 with the LNP ...

we got one or two testers last year & one or two 2018...

won't see a operational unit until after 2022.

So much for we what we need now ... putz. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:23pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:05pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 7:12pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:45pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:33pm:

*SIGH* such ignorance, such foolishness. Leave defence to the experts. Amateurs don't know their arses from their elbows. ::) ::) ::)

Much like your pretense of all knowledge ey? DH.

BTW Noddy since when have our politicians been experts on defense.

Like all the experts on the Collins Class Sub fiasco? ;D

Their ongoing failings & constant upgrade requirements which saw them out of action for long periods make them on a par in the respective time frame as being bottomless money pits.

~~As for not knowing ones arse from ones elbow I'll take that as being advice from an expert in that dept. ::)~~

The problem with the COLLINS class is that we don't have enough crews for them. The RAN cannot keep the crews trained and onboard the boats for long enough. Now the mining boom is well and truly over, that may change. The RAN found they were training their crews to only have them piss off to the mines where they got four times the wage.

The COLLINS class have actually been an excellent boat, when in service. They are one of the largest, quietest submarines in service today. We did a good deal (note, not an excellent one, Kokums tried to do the dirty on us at one point) and we did an adequate job (not a great job) building them. The RAN stuffed up in the contract they used to pay for the submarines which is why they ended up with inadequate control systems. Those have now been replaced and updated.

While they did not end up as quiet as originally envisaged, they were still far better than the ignorant media portrayed them to be. The problem was the Labor Government decided to retrench a large number of middle-ranking naval officers, many of whom had been involved in the building of the COLLINS class. Embittered they were willing to spill the beans to the media and the media (read Murdoch) was only too willing to publish anything embarrassing to Labor. They are significantly quieter their predecessors (the OBERON class) and significantly quieter than comparable nuclear powered submarines. They are simply not "twice as quiet" as the OBERON classes as originally specified.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:43pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 2:53pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 8:25am:

One Tornado was shot down by a Mig-29.

Most of the detractors of the F-35 do not or will not understand that the present moment there is nothing comparable to the F-35, either in the West or the East. No Russian or Chinese aircraft is as stealthy or possesses the same facilities which make the F-35 their superior.

Agreed. A 1960s vintage F-111 isn't going to do the job these days.

Despite a problematic development, the F-35 is coming good. Just like the F-111 did back in the late 60s

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:50pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:14pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. I suppose we should have just dropped into the corner shop and bought a new fighter-bomber off the shelf? In reality, what happened was the US suggested we might like to become involved in the development and manufacture of a new aircraft and therefore we could buy it at a reduced price. The Australian Government accepted and we placed an initial order for 48 and then later an increased order for up to 72 aircraft. These are not things you buy off the shelf, if you're a first world nation. You try and cut the best deal possible with off-sets where we manufacture parts of the aircraft or other aircraft which the original manufacturers purchase back off us.

The F-35 is still the most advanced fighter-bomber jet aircraft in production. A fact that you cannot get away from, no matter how much you whinge and whine. Aircraft nowadays take time to develop and the F-35 is running roughly on schedule. 20 years from the time the first pen hit the paper is not bad going nowadays. Nothing else matches the F-35 at the moment or for the foreseeable future. Get over it and stop your whinging and whining. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 5:02pm

Stig wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 2:53pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 8:25am:

One Tornado was shot down by a Mig-29.

Agreed. A 1960s vintage F-111 isn't going to do the job these days.

Despite a problematic development, the F-35 is coming good. Just like the F-111 did back in the late 60s

It is doing better than the F-111. It has suffered only one crash thus far. The F-111 suffered fewer crashes during development than the F-4 Phantom yet when the F-111 was being developed, we never heard of any comparison with other aircraft types. The F-35 has had one loss in ~20 years of development.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:09pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:23pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:05pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 7:12pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:45pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:33pm:

*SIGH* such ignorance, such foolishness. Leave defence to the experts. Amateurs don't know their arses from their elbows. ::) ::) ::)

Much like your pretense of all knowledge ey? DH.

BTW Noddy since when have our politicians been experts on defense.

Like all the experts on the Collins Class Sub fiasco? ;D

Their ongoing failings & constant upgrade requirements which saw them out of action for long periods make them on a par in the respective time frame as being bottomless money pits.

~~As for not knowing ones arse from ones elbow I'll take that as being advice from an expert in that dept. ::)~~

How many fully working Collins subs are actually on patrol out in the deep sea?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:09pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:23pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:05pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 7:12pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:45pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:33pm:

*SIGH* such ignorance, such foolishness. Leave defence to the experts. Amateurs don't know their arses from their elbows. ::) ::) ::)

Much like your pretense of all knowledge ey? DH.

BTW Noddy since when have our politicians been experts on defense.

Like all the experts on the Collins Class Sub fiasco? ;D

Their ongoing failings & constant upgrade requirements which saw them out of action for long periods make them on a par in the respective time frame as being bottomless money pits.

~~As for not knowing ones arse from ones elbow I'll take that as being advice from an expert in that dept. ::)~~

Many places experienced staff losses due to the mining boom & the higher wages ... not just the Navy.

And the "when in service" just confirms my point.

We go from crap decision to crap decision with our ADF hardware ...... the F35's are shaping up to be another.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:13pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:50pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:14pm:

Rubbish - the F-35 is not running roughly on schedule -
it's about 5 years behind schedule and countless $billions over budget.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:20pm

Stig wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 2:53pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 8:25am:

One Tornado was shot down by a Mig-29.

Agreed. A 1960s vintage F-111 isn't going to do the job these days.

Despite a problematic development, the F-35 is coming good. Just like the F-111 did back in the late 60s

F111's never came into service in Australia until 1982.

RAAF No.2 Squadron was still flying Canberra Bombers until 1982.

We leased F 4e Phantoms whist waiting for the F111's.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:25pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:50pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:14pm:

Stop waffling Bwian ... all that shoots your "here & now & not the future" drivel ... out of the sky.

20 years? what rot.

20 years old & the state of the art?

That's what the critics said .... an old pig with lipstick.

As for running to schedule ... that's another crock of shyte ...

it's years behind.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:41pm

Brian doesn't know.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:41pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:20pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 2:53pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 8:25am:

One Tornado was shot down by a Mig-29.

Agreed. A 1960s vintage F-111 isn't going to do the job these days.

Despite a problematic development, the F-35 is coming good. Just like the F-111 did back in the late 60s

F111's never came into service in Australia until 1982.

RAAF No.2 Squadron was still flying Canberra Bombers until 1982.

We leased F 4e Phantoms whist waiting for the F111's.

First flight of the F-111 was 1964, the RAAF got them in 1973. Like I said, 60s technology

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 7:46pm

Stig wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:41pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:20pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 2:53pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 8:25am:

One Tornado was shot down by a Mig-29.

Agreed. A 1960s vintage F-111 isn't going to do the job these days.

Despite a problematic development, the F-35 is coming good. Just like the F-111 did back in the late 60s

F111's never came into service in Australia until 1982.

RAAF No.2 Squadron was still flying Canberra Bombers until 1982.

We leased F 4e Phantoms whist waiting for the F111's.

First flight of the F-111 was 1964, the RAAF got them in 1973. Like I said, 60s technology

F111s -
They had many upgrades.
The ones that went into museums had to have all their high tech
electronics taken out of them & sent back to the USA.
It was too secret to leave lying around.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:26pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:09pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:23pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:05pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 7:12pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:45pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 6:33pm:

*SIGH* such ignorance, such foolishness. Leave defence to the experts. Amateurs don't know their arses from their elbows. ::) ::) ::)

Much like your pretense of all knowledge ey? DH.

BTW Noddy since when have our politicians been experts on defense.

Like all the experts on the Collins Class Sub fiasco? ;D

Their ongoing failings & constant upgrade requirements which saw them out of action for long periods make them on a par in the respective time frame as being bottomless money pits.

~~As for not knowing ones arse from ones elbow I'll take that as being advice from an expert in that dept. ::)~~

How many fully working Collins subs are actually on patrol out in the deep sea?

If I told you that, Bobby, I'd have to kill you afterwards. :)

In theory, we should have two on patrol, two in training and two in refit. AIUI we actually have about 1.5 on patrol, 1.5 in training and 3 in refit (and please don't ask me what .5 of a submarine looks like. ::) )

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:37pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:09pm:

The RAN has suffered significant crew losses in their submarine service. It is simply easier to go FIFO to a remote mining site than to spend six months away from home, on some far off PA.

We have, in the past suffered, I am quite willing to admit from bad procurement decisions - decisions it should be noted which were primarily politically drive. Nowadays, things have improved markedly. The COLLINS class is a case in point. None of the other tenders were wiling to allow the boats to be built in Australia to the RAN's specifications. Kockums tried to do the dirty on us by making bad welds on the first boat of the class (which was partially assembled in Sweden) but when that was discovered they had their wrists slapped and the boat was rewelded, at their expense. The COLLINS class is still one of the largest, longest ranged, best equipped and quietest submarines in the world.

The F-35 is an interesting case and one where the procurement decisions have been driven by Australia's need for technology transfer as against cheapness of procurement. Not only can we, if necessary, repair and rebuild the aircraft downunder, we can build new ones if the worst ever came to the worse.

As usual, you have failed t answer my major point - there is simply no other alternative aircraft that is as advanced as the F-35 which is available. The Russians are a good 20 years behind, the Chinese a good 15 years behind. The British are a good 20 years behind, the French a good 30 years behind, the Swedes have basically given up on the idea of stealth it appears from the open source press at the moment. The F-35 is the only aircraft available to us which ensures that we retain a technological edge over all other air forces in the region.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:39pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:13pm:

Rubbish - the F-35 is not running roughly on schedule -
it's about 5 years behind schedule and countless $billions over budget.

Bobby, nowadays that is considered "roughly on schedule". Political decisions and technical difficulties all play a part in modern defence procurement. The technical difficulties have been overcome. The political decisions have made it slip further behind.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:53pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:20pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 2:53pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 8:25am:

One Tornado was shot down by a Mig-29.

Agreed. A 1960s vintage F-111 isn't going to do the job these days.

Despite a problematic development, the F-35 is coming good. Just like the F-111 did back in the late 60s

F111's never came into service in Australia until 1982.

RAAF No.2 Squadron was still flying Canberra Bombers until 1982.

We leased F 4e Phantoms whist waiting for the F111's.

The F-111 entered service with the RAAF in 1973 when the first aircraft were flown across the Pacific from the USA:

Quote:

While the first aircraft was officially handed over on 4 September 1968, structural issues delayed the entry into service of the F-111C.[1] Twenty-four USAF F-4 Phantom IIs were leased as an interim measure.[36] The Phantoms were delivered in September and October 1970 to No. 82 Wing at RAAF Base Amberley, Queensland. During its next three years in RAAF service, one F-4 was lost. By June 1973, the remaining 23 Phantoms were returned to the U.S.
[...]
The F-111C entered Australian service after the technical problems were resolved, and the first F-111C was accepted at Nellis Air Force Base on 15 March 1973.[60] On 31 March, the RAAF Washington Flying Unit was formed at McClellan Air Force Base in California with the mission of ferrying the first 12 F-111Cs to Australia.[61] This unit was commanded by Group Captain John Newham, who later served as Chief of the Air Staff between 1985 and 1988. The RAAF's first six F-111Cs arrived at Amberley on 1 July 1973, and three subsequent groups of six F-111s arrived on 27 July, 28 September and 4 December.

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111C#Entry_into_service]source[/url]

I have absolutely no idea where you got the year of 1982 from. The F-111 was originally designed with early 1960s technology in it's avionics. This was then progressive updated until a remanufacture programme was undertaken in the 1990s and the entire fleet was returned to zero hours and all their avionics were replaced with digital systems.

Quote:

The Canberra's distinguished RAAF career officially ended on 30 June 1982 when No 2 Squadron flew four aircraft over Brisbane and surrounding areas in a farewell fly-past.

[url=https://www.airforce.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3736/f/minisite/static/1469/RAAFmuseum/research/aircraft/series2/A84.htm]Source[/url]

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:53pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:39pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:13pm:

Rubbish - the F-35 is not running roughly on schedule -
it's about 5 years behind schedule and countless $billions over budget.

;D I wouldn't want to be hanging by the balls waiting at that rate.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:55pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:25pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:50pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:14pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. It is obvious that you know absolutely nothing about this topic. Run along back to your bridge. Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 5:59pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:09pm:

How many fully working Collins subs are actually on patrol out in the deep sea?

Only 1.5 actually out there in the deep blue sea?

That's an embarrassment.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 6:00pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:39pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:13pm:

Rubbish - the F-35 is not running roughly on schedule -
it's about 5 years behind schedule and countless $billions over budget.

;D I wouldn't want to be hanging by the balls waiting at that rate.

Brian doesn't know.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Baronvonrort on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 6:43pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:26pm:

So what does .5 of a sub look like, what is .5 of a sub?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 9:34pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 5:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:09pm:

How many fully working Collins subs are actually on patrol out in the deep sea?

Only 1.5 actually out there in the deep blue sea?

That's an embarrassment.

Why?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 7:16am

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 9:34pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 5:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:09pm:

How many fully working Collins subs are actually on patrol out in the deep sea?

Only 1.5 actually out there in the deep blue sea?

That's an embarrassment.

Why?

I expected at least 5 to be at sea, protecting our nation.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:01pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 7:16am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 9:34pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 5:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:09pm:

How many fully working Collins subs are actually on patrol out in the deep sea?

Only 1.5 actually out there in the deep blue sea?

That's an embarrassment.

Why?

I expected at least 5 to be at sea, protecting our nation.

Nope. Never going to happen, Bobby. The limiting factor is crew. You cannot expect the crew to spend all their lives at sea.

In modern logistical terms, you invariably aim for about one third of your vessels (of any type) to be at sea, operating with the fleet, during peacetime. You expect another third to be training to go to sea, for operations with the fleet. You expect the last third to be in refit - having repairs made, batteries replaced, etc. When we have fifteen submarines and no mining boom, you can expect approximately five to be on operations in peacetime, Bobby.

In wartime, you can expect a surge BTW, with approximately an additional sixth of your force going to sea on operations, with another sixth in training and another third undergoing refits.

Refitting submarines takes years BTW. Nuclear submarines take longer of course but we don't have any of them nor expect to have any in the foreseeable future. We lack the nuclear industry to support them. We do not have the nuclear technicians to maintain them and we lack the nuclear fuel to run them. We would need to create a whole new nuclear training and support industry. It would significantly skew our Defence budget.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:11pm

I don't care what you say Brian,
I want my tax payers money to be putting 5 out of 6 subs in the deep blue sea at all times - 24 hours per day 365 days per year -

having only 1 sub out there sometimes, is a huge embarrassment -
heads should roll.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:22pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:55pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:25pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:50pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 4:14pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. It is obvious that you know absolutely nothing about this topic. Run along back to your bridge. Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

Have you been told today?

Consider yourself told .... ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:24pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:11pm:

I agree .... 3 out of six subs should be at sea at staggered intervals whilst others are on shore leave & for maintenance.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 7:01pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:11pm:

I agree .... 3 out of six subs should be at sea at staggered intervals whilst others are on shore leave & for maintenance.

There should be a fresh crew waiting & no more than 3 days
maintenance when they go to shore -
refuel, replenish the food & other supplies & back out to sea.

Military quality products shouldn't break down all the time -
they should go for 10 years or more between services.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 7:29pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:11pm:

Run along, Bobby, run along. I can hear your playmates in the little kiddies' playground calling.

You know, sometimes you can be sensible and then you just act like a nong. Stop it, you'll go blind! ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 7:32pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:11pm:

Don't try and belittle someone who actually knows.

You don't know.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 7:46pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:22pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:55pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. It is obvious that you know absolutely nothing about this topic. Run along back to your bridge. Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

Have you been told today?

Consider yourself told .... ::)

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk. Run along Gnads, run along. Your little friends in the little kiddies' playground are calling you. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 7:49pm

Now - back on topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfDTIFAT68I

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 9:25pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:11pm:

I agree .... 3 out of six subs should be at sea at staggered intervals whilst others are on shore leave & for maintenance.

Fine in theory - if there are sufficient crews, Gnads. Unfortunately, the Mining Boom put paid to that. We are slowly recovering from that. Slowly - something you don't seem to take into account - the amount of time it takes to train submarine crewmen. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 9:31pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 7:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:11pm:

Don't try and belittle someone who actually knows.

You don't know.

I suspect I know a great deal more than you, Bobby, a great deal. You have thus far demonstrated nothing of any real value in this thread. Funny that, hey? ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 9:33pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 7:01pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:11pm:

I agree .... 3 out of six subs should be at sea at staggered intervals whilst others are on shore leave & for maintenance.

Oh, you speak from such ignorance, Bobby. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:56am

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 7:46pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:22pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:55pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. It is obvious that you know absolutely nothing about this topic. Run along back to your bridge. Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

Have you been told today?

Consider yourself told .... ::)

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk. Run along Gnads, run along. Your little friends in the little kiddies' playground are calling you. ::)

You're a complete tosser Brian.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:58am

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 9:25pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:11pm:

I agree .... 3 out of six subs should be at sea at staggered intervals whilst others are on shore leave & for maintenance.

::) more repetition Brian. The mining boom has been ... there have been staff reductions all over the industry of late. Technology innit.

Driverless trains, driverless dump trucks ... etc etc

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 2:09pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:56am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 7:46pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:22pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 3:55pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. It is obvious that you know absolutely nothing about this topic. Run along back to your bridge. Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

Have you been told today?

Consider yourself told .... ::)

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk. Run along Gnads, run along. Your little friends in the little kiddies' playground are calling you. ::)

You're a complete tosser Brian.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk. Run along Gnads, run along. Your little friends in the little kiddies' playground are calling you. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 2:14pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:58am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 9:25pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:11pm:

I agree .... 3 out of six subs should be at sea at staggered intervals whilst others are on shore leave & for maintenance.

::) more repetition Brian. The mining boom has been ... there have been staff reductions all over the industry of late. Technology innit.

Driverless trains, driverless dump trucks ... etc etc

And who maintains the trains, the dump trucks, keeps their engines working, Gnads? You do realise there is still quite a market for people trained in heavy diesel engine maintenance and so on? Or don't you? Do you think that the trains/trucks just roll out of their sheds, lacking it appears according to you, drivers without ever having any maintenance undertaken on them? Really? Gnads, you really are ignorant, aren't you?

Oh, and "driverless systems" are still in their infancy, in the real world. Some big advances have been made but no one is really implementing such systems on a wide scale, yet.

Run along, Gnads, I heard your little friends in the little kiddies' playground calling you. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:14pm

Brian,
you have a superiority complex.
You're not that smart.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:30pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:14pm:

Brian,
you have a superiority complex.
You're not that smart.

Oh, I agree with you, Bobby. I'm just smarter than you and Gnads and most other people here on this topic... :)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:34pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:14pm:

Brian,
you have a superiority complex.
You're not that smart.

Oh, I agree with you, Bobby. I'm just smarter than you and Gnads and most other people here on this topic... :)

Tsk Tsk.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:39pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:34pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:14pm:

Brian,
you have a superiority complex.
You're not that smart.

Oh, I agree with you, Bobby. I'm just smarter than you and Gnads and most other people here on this topic... :)

Tsk Tsk.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Bobby. Do you revel in your ignorance and foolishness? Appears so. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:53pm

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Brian. Do you revel in your ignorance and foolishness? Appears so. Tsk, tsk.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:57pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:53pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Brian. Do you revel in your ignorance and foolishness? Appears so. Tsk, tsk.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Such a silly sausage, Bobby. No prizes for second place. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 10:00pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:57pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:53pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Brian. Do you revel in your ignorance and foolishness? Appears so. Tsk, tsk.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Such a silly sausage, Bobby. No prizes for second place. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Brian - I actually know more about this topic than you think.
I can't give out the information.
I know that we should have a lot more than 1 sub at sea - that's pathetic.

The only reason we're buying F35s is that it enables us to
operate in the same battlefield area as the Yanks.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 10:10pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 10:00pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:57pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:53pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Brian. Do you revel in your ignorance and foolishness? Appears so. Tsk, tsk.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Such a silly sausage, Bobby. No prizes for second place. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Brian - I actually know more about this topic than you think.
I can't give out the information.
I know that we should have a lot more than 1 sub at sea - that's pathetic.

The only reason we're buying F35s is that it enables us to
operate in the same battlefield area as the Yanks.

Partially yes, partially no. The F-35 is the most advanced fighter-bomber aircraft available at the present time (and for the next 10 years). There is simply no other aircraft as advanced. No other aircraft that is as stealthy, packed with advanced electronics and able to carry weapons which as advanced as it does. Until you can find me an aircraft that is more advanced than the F-35 and which we can afford to purchase, as cheaply as we are the F-35 (on the basis of the systems that it carries), I will continue to back the F-35. Simples really. Something the detractors of the F-35 never do, BTW, Bobby.

Now, if you know more than you're letting on, why do you keep making such simple mistakes all the time? Mmmm? ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 11:31pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 10:10pm:

Oh, I agree with you. However, unlike you, I recognise that we cannot - as long as we lack sufficient trained crew. As long as the mining companies keep paying more than the RAN does, where do you think the RAN crew will end up? Mmm?

Partially yes, partially no. The F-35 is the most advanced fighter-bomber aircraft available at the present time (and for the next 10 years). There is simply no other aircraft as advanced. No other aircraft that is as stealthy, packed with advanced electronics and able to carry weapons which as advanced as it does. Until you can find me an aircraft that is more advanced than the F-35 and which we can afford to purchase, as cheaply as we are the F-35 (on the basis of the systems that it carries), I will continue to back the F-35. Simples really. Something the detractors of the F-35 never do, BTW, Bobby.

Now, if you know more than you're letting on, why do you keep making such simple mistakes all the time? Mmmm? ::)

Brian,
you're ignorant.

The mining companies are not paying more it's
just that submarines are horrible claustrophobic places
and they are extremely dangerous to be in.
Did you hear about the Collins that was nearly lost at sea?
Who would want to serve in an underwater coffin?

The F35 may if fact turn out to be the best aeroplane but
it's by no means assured.
It has failed to meet many of it's prerequisite capabilities.
The Govts. just changed the goal posts in the match so
that the F35 would pass.
It's too heavy, too slow & it can't climb nearly as fast as previous aircraft.
It's not perfectly stealthy either.
Many of its missions would have to be carried
out by tomahawk cruise missiles -
especially to destroy the S-400 missile systems from Russia.

read some more here:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/05/asia/india-s400-deal-intl/index.html

Quote:

The Turkey deal has caused consternation in Washington, where a bipartisan group of lawmakers have attempted to block the transfer of the US' F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to Turkey, citing security concerns.
US defense officials believe once operational, the S-400 could be used to gather technical data on US designed fighter planes and that critical information could be passed to Moscow either intentionally or unintentionally through a back door in the Russian designed system.
India's purchase of the S-400 may result in the US refusing to sell "advanced fighter aircraft types" to Delhi in the future, said Layton.

Brian - you are forgiven but I feel
you are a worthy student to teach.

namaste

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Caveman on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:31am

Vlads MIG41 will smash this old land rover to bits.

Stupid Australians following the yanks.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:46am

Captain Caveman wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:31am:

Vlads MIG41 will smash this old land rover to bits.

Stupid Australians following the yanks.

No MIG-41s until 2025.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-41

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:26am

Captain Caveman wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:31am:

Vlads MIG41 will smash this old land rover to bits.

Stupid Australians following the yanks.

A mach 4, ramjet equipped fighter that can operate in near space with anti-missile lasers (according to the manufacturer).

Sure I saw that movie once. They sent Clint Eastwood over to steal it and fly it back to America. Have it on DVD somewhere.

/think in Russian...

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 2:27pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 11:31pm:

Brian,
you're ignorant.

Am I? You have thus far failed to prove I am ignorant, Bobby. ::)

Quote:

The mining companies are not paying more it's
just that submarines are horrible claustrophobic places
and they are extremely dangerous to be in.
Did you hear about the Collins that was nearly lost at sea?
Who would want to serve in an underwater coffin?

The F35 may if fact turn out to be the best aeroplane but
it's by no means assured.
It has failed to meet many of it's prerequisite capabilities.
The Govts. just changed the goal posts in the match so
that the F35 would pass.
It's too heavy, too slow & it can't climb nearly as fast as previous aircraft.
It's not perfectly stealthy either.
Many of its missions would have to be carried
out by tomahawk cruise missiles -
especially to destroy the S-400 missile systems from Russia.

Well, we thankfully aren't yet going up against anyone armed with the S-400 system, Bobby and more than likely won't. The Russians don't give away such expensive SAMs without making their recipients pay the full tote odds for them.

Quote:

Brian - you are forgiven but I feel
you are a worthy student to teach.

namaste

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 2:30pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:46am:

Captain Caveman wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:31am:

Vlads MIG41 will smash this old land rover to bits.

Stupid Australians following the yanks.

No MIG-41s until 2025.

IF purchased by the Russian airforce. There is no evidence it has been, Bobby. ::) ::)

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-41

*SIGH* comparing apples with oranges, again, Bobby?

The MiG41 is an interceptor. The F-35 is a fighter-bomber. The MiG41 is designed to climb fast, fly fast and fire it's missiles at the enemy aircraft it has intercepted. The F-35 is intended to fly a long way, evade the enemy's defences and attack their assets. The MiG41 is intended to intercept aircraft like the F-35. Being Russian, of course, it will fail and fail badly at doing so. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 2:56pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 2:27pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 11:31pm:

Brian,
you're ignorant.

Am I? You have thus far failed to prove I am ignorant, Bobby. ::)

Quote:

Nearly, is not certain, Bobby. I've known quite a few submariners. They were more than happy to serve on Oberons and Collins class boats - the pay was simply better onloand than on the boats so, guess which won in the end? Safety is a concern in any profession, the Navy more than many. Submarines are dangerous but we have yet to lose a boat thankfully.

[quote]The F35 may if fact turn out to be the best aeroplane but
it's by no means assured.
It has failed to meet many of it's prerequisite capabilities.
The Govts. just changed the goal posts in the match so
that the F35 would pass.
It's too heavy, too slow & it can't climb nearly as fast as previous aircraft.
It's not perfectly stealthy either.
Many of its missions would have to be carried
out by tomahawk cruise missiles -
especially to destroy the S-400 missile systems from Russia.

Brian - you are forgiven but I feel
you are a worthy student to teach.

namaste

You have nothing to teach me, Bobby. I snatched the pebbles from the hands of my real teachers over 20 years ago when I was awarded my Master of Defence Studies degree. Teachers I must add who far surpass anything you know. Funny that, hey? ::) ::)
[/quote]

dear Brian,
since this an anonymous forum there is no way you can prove any qualifications -
one of the reasons I don't boast about my own.
You are still my student:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9selPW2lL-M

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 3:05pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 2:56pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 2:27pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 11:31pm:

Brian,
you're ignorant.

Am I? You have thus far failed to prove I am ignorant, Bobby. ::)

Quote:

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Valkie on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 4:03pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 3:05pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 2:56pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 2:27pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 11:31pm:

Brian,
you're ignorant.

Am I? You have thus far failed to prove I am ignorant, Bobby. ::)

Quote:

dear Brian,
since this an anonymous forum there is no way you can prove any qualifications -
one of the reasons I don't boast about my own.
You are still my student:
[/quote]

No, I am not, Bobby.

I do not boast, i inform. I am proud of my Masters as it is in a rare subject - Defence Studies. It is why I know so much about Defence matters. Far more than dilettantes like you, Bobby. ::)
[/quote]

I don't believe you bwyannnnnn
bwyannnnnn
I'd like a signed affidavit in triplicate with evidence before I believe anything you say.

Sound familiar?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 4:03pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 3:05pm:

OK Brian,
I will give you a chance to prove yourself.
In the quote made below:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/05/asia/india-s400-deal-intl/index.html

Quote:

What are they referring to when they say?

"intentionally or unintentionally through a back door in the Russian designed system."

I know the answer so - you tell us all and then I'll give the real answer.
It won't be on Google so don't bother looking.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 5:45pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 2:14pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:58am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 9:25pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:11pm:

I agree .... 3 out of six subs should be at sea at staggered intervals whilst others are on shore leave & for maintenance.

::) more repetition Brian. The mining boom has been ... there have been staff reductions all over the industry of late. Technology innit.

Driverless trains, driverless dump trucks ... etc etc

That's still a massive reduction in operational staff you dolt.

You're one of the tossers that follows the downward trend in employment opportunities and conditions to the lowest common denominator and think it good.

As for the introduction of driverless technology being in its infancy then you are as mistaken as you claim I am regarding the F35.

The trialing & experimentation with driverless trains in the iron ore industry has been going on for decades ... Rio Tinto have already started it in the Pilbara & the bug ironing out is just about completed.

BHP are set to follow.

I have 45 years in the rail industry ... you?

Naff off you patronising condescending twerp.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 5:46pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:14pm:

Brian,
you have a superiority complex.
You're not that smart.

Oh, I agree with you, Bobby. I'm just smarter than you and Gnads and most other people here on this topic... :)

You're smarter than no one.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 5:48pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 11:31pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 10:10pm:

Brian - you are forgiven but I feel
you are a worthy student to teach.

namaste

He's not ignorant ... he's deliberately a half smart arse.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 5:52pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 2:27pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 11:31pm:

Brian,
you're ignorant.

Am I? You have thus far failed to prove I am ignorant, Bobby. ::)

Quote:

Brian - you are forgiven but I feel
you are a worthy student to teach.

namaste

You have nothing to teach me, Bobby. I snatched the pebbles from the hands of my real teachers over 20 years ago when I was awarded my Master of Defence Studies degree. Teachers I must add who far surpass anything you know. Funny that, hey? ::) ::)
[/quote]

That should read MASTER BATERS DEGREE.

Simply put Brian you're a detestable wanker.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:07pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 5:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:14pm:

Brian,
you have a superiority complex.
You're not that smart.

Oh, I agree with you, Bobby. I'm just smarter than you and Gnads and most other people here on this topic... :)

You're smarter than no one.

Don't worry - I've asked Brian a question -

let's see if he can answer it.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:15pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 4:03pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 3:05pm:

OK Brian,
I will give you a chance to prove yourself.
In the quote made below:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/05/asia/india-s400-deal-intl/index.html

Quote:

Oh, dearie, dearie me. Well Bobby, what it means is that the Russians might get out of their S-400 system the stealth "signatures" of stealth systems if they were sold by the US to India. They could design their systems to accept a remote login from a system outside the Indian system and download all the information it has been either programmed with or it has detected when operating with these hypothetical systems that the US might sell to India. They could either do this overtly or covertly.

Personally, I think the yanks are going a bit over the top. Stealth systems are not the holy grail they are being made out to be. The Russians have this knowledge, indeed there is quite a bit of evidence that they were the first to propose such a system, way back in the 1970s. It appears to be their way of warning off the Russians as potential competitors. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:22pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 5:45pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 2:14pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:58am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 9:25pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:11pm:

I agree .... 3 out of six subs should be at sea at staggered intervals whilst others are on shore leave & for maintenance.

::) more repetition Brian. The mining boom has been ... there have been staff reductions all over the industry of late. Technology innit.

Driverless trains, driverless dump trucks ... etc etc

I have no experience in the rail industry, Gnads. However, I read the IT press and as far as I am aware, driverless technology is still in it's relative infancy. Rio has only been trialling this for about the last 5 years. AIUI they are still undertaking trial implementations. The Unions will prevent them from implementing it on a widescale though, I do not doubt.

The number of operating staff might be decreasing as a consequence but the number of maintenance staff will actually increase as a consequence. You will require staff to not only maintain the motive sources but the operating systems and comms. Guess where the big dollars will be?

The RAN will not be able to match the mining companies when it comes to wages for the next five-ten years IMO, Gnads. The RAN submarine fleet will continue to languish in port for the foreseeable future. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:23pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 5:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:14pm:

Brian,
you have a superiority complex.
You're not that smart.

Oh, I agree with you, Bobby. I'm just smarter than you and Gnads and most other people here on this topic... :)

You're smarter than no one.

Doesn't look that way, Gnads. Tsk, tsk. I really don't know why I bother with you, I really don't. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:26pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 5:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 2:27pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 11:31pm:

Brian,
you're ignorant.

Am I? You have thus far failed to prove I am ignorant, Bobby. ::)

Quote:

You have nothing to teach me, Bobby. I snatched the pebbles from the hands of my real teachers over 20 years ago when I was awarded my Master of Defence Studies degree. Teachers I must add who far surpass anything you know. Funny that, hey? ::) ::)
[/quote]

That should read MASTER BATERS DEGREE.

Simply put Brian you're a detestable wanker.
[/quote]

Sorry, Gnads, what was it you typed that was a valued contribution to this thread? Oh, nothing? How unusual, hey? Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:30pm

Valkie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 4:03pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 3:05pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 2:56pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 2:27pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 11:31pm:

Brian,
you're ignorant.

Am I? You have thus far failed to prove I am ignorant, Bobby. ::)

Quote:

dear Brian,
since this an anonymous forum there is no way you can prove any qualifications -
one of the reasons I don't boast about my own.
You are still my student:

No, I am not, Bobby.

I do not boast, i inform. I am proud of my Masters as it is in a rare subject - Defence Studies. It is why I know so much about Defence matters. Far more than dilettantes like you, Bobby. ::)
[/quote]

I don't believe you bwyannnnnn
bwyannnnnn
I'd like a signed affidavit in triplicate with evidence before I believe anything you say.

Sound familiar?
[/quote]

Was there anything of value in your contribution, Valkie? No, it doesn't appear so. Tsk, tsk, I really don't know why you bother, I really don't. Such a waste of electrons. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:34pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:15pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 4:03pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 3:05pm:

OK Brian,
I will give you a chance to prove yourself.
In the quote made below:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/05/asia/india-s400-deal-intl/index.html

Quote:

That's close but you never mentioned how they would do it?

Here's the answer.
The S-400 system would be designed to operate with many other S-400 systems including the S-300 system.
They have to communicate to do that.
All war machines have redundant comms. systems.
One way is to use ordinary radio communication in HF & UHF bands -
another is to use satellites.
I would not be surprised if the S-400 & S-300 use all 3 types.

The Indians would need to fly the F35 over a S-400 system to check the radar signature
& to see what radar bands give any signature.
The Russians may be able to clandestinely upload all the
data via satellite without the Indians knowing.
They could also do this in real time and use Russian satellites to
to look for any F35 signature obtainable from space -
Russian satellites.
Such information would be invaluable in a time of war.
In may very well be that a longer wavelength than is used
by the S-400 system would be better at picking it up.
The Russians will obtain this knowledge & defeat any stealth capability of the F35.

The Israelis recently took out targets in Syria using F35s.
No doubt - the Russians got lots of information from the S-300
systems stationed there.

Anyway Brian - your answer was incomplete so I'll give you a pass
but only 5 out of 10.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:43pm

Bobby, Bobby, why would the Indians allow the Russians to institute satellite comm systems in their air-defence systems when they don't use satellites themselves? Why pay for something which you will never use?

Air Defence Systems do not, BTW, use satellite comms to communicate with one another. They use cable or wireless (short range) data links. Air Defence systems do not need to communicate more than a few hundred kilometres - at most. Why? 'cause you don't design an Air Defence system which would be placed more than a few hundred kilometres from it's nearest neighbour. There is simply no need for that, except in a Strategic air defence system and the S-400 is strictly speaking a tactical Air Defence System.

You do, understand the difference, I hope, Bobby between a "tactical" and a "strategic" level system?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:52pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:43pm:

Brian,
space is the place - I assure you that he who holds the high ground wins.
Of course they use satellites.
The Indians do have satellites.

tsk tsk.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:02pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:43pm:

Brian,
space is the place - I assure you that he who holds the high ground wins.
Of course they use satellites.
The Indians do have satellites.

tsk tsk.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. It is obvious you do not understand the difference between a strategic and a tactical level system. Tsk, tsk, run along. I can hear all your little friends in the little kiddies' playground calling back. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Sir lastnail on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:04pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 3:05pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 2:56pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 2:27pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 11:31pm:

Brian,
you're ignorant.

Am I? You have thus far failed to prove I am ignorant, Bobby. ::)

Quote:

dear Brian,
since this an anonymous forum there is no way you can prove any qualifications -
one of the reasons I don't boast about my own.
You are still my student:
[/quote]

No, I am not, Bobby.

I do not boast, i inform. I am proud of my Masters as it is in a rare subject - Defence Studies. It is why I know so much about Defence matters. Far more than dilettantes like you, Bobby. ::)
[/quote]

but you don't have any understanding of the underlying technology except what is written in a brochure at some air show.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:05pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:02pm:

Brian,
a strategic and a tactical level system?
The S-400 & S-300 can do both -
that's why they have to communicate with each other.
One picks up the target and a central command works out which missile battery should fire.

Brian - your masters degree is not showing in this.

tsk tsk.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:08pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:22pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 5:45pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 2:14pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:58am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 9:25pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:11pm:

I agree .... 3 out of six subs should be at sea at staggered intervals whilst others are on shore leave & for maintenance.

::) more repetition Brian. The mining boom has been ... there have been staff reductions all over the industry of late. Technology innit.

Driverless trains, driverless dump trucks ... etc etc

Maintenance staff won't be increased ... there will be the same number of locomotives & rollingstock. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:10pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:23pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 5:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 7:14pm:

Brian,
you have a superiority complex.
You're not that smart.

Oh, I agree with you, Bobby. I'm just smarter than you and Gnads and most other people here on this topic... :)

You're smarter than no one.

Doesn't look that way, Gnads. Tsk, tsk. I really don't know why I bother with you, I really don't. ::) ::)

And me with you ... so ditto you dolt.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:12pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 6:26pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 5:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 2:27pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 11:31pm:

Brian,
you're ignorant.

Am I? You have thus far failed to prove I am ignorant, Bobby. ::)

Quote:

That should read MASTER BATERS DEGREE.

Simply put Brian you're a detestable wanker.
[/quote]

Sorry, Gnads, what was it you typed that was a valued contribution to this thread? Oh, nothing? How unusual, hey? Tsk, tsk. ::)

[/quote]

As yours was completely supposition ... because you're a self appointed knowall.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:37pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:04pm:

but you don't have any understanding of the underlying technology except what is written in a brochure at some air show.

Only bothered to attend one show, way back in '88. Boring as all pooh. No, I know more than what you find in a brochure. I am not out to sell anything, unlike like a Defence Contractor. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:41pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:05pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:02pm:

What the S-300 and now the S-400 lack is range, Bobby. Their missiles can fulfill the function of a strategic system (if it is working properly).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtuN8UuAWTg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeUiniAVwM8

Their radars cannot. Their range is too short.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 8:06pm

Brian,
cop this video -
the F35 can't beat the S-400 missile system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM_p27iKz2E

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 9:22pm

Youtube videos are not very good for making valid analysis of anything, Bobby. Run along, lets see you find some real evidence. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 10:51pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 9:22pm:

Youtube videos are not very good for making valid analysis of anything, Bobby. Run along, lets see you find some real evidence. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Hey everyone -
Brian knows more than the person who made the above video -
Brian really is a big deal.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 12:11am

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 10:51pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 9:22pm:

Youtube videos are not very good for making valid analysis of anything, Bobby. Run along, lets see you find some real evidence. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Hey everyone -
Brian knows more than the person who made the above video -
Brian really is a big deal.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Bobby. The man who relies on YouTube videos for his evidence. Tsk, tsk, get back to us when you've written anything professionally on Australia's defence procurement, OK? Get back to us when you have academic qualifications in Defence Studies, OK? I suspect I have more knowledge in my little finger than you have in your whole brain about this topic. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 6:42am

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 12:11am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 10:51pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 9:22pm:

Youtube videos are not very good for making valid analysis of anything, Bobby. Run along, lets see you find some real evidence. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Hey everyone -
Brian knows more than the person who made the above video -
Brian really is a big deal.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Bobby.
The man who relies on YouTube videos for his evidence.
Tsk, tsk, get back to us when you've written anything professionally on Australia's defence procurement, OK? Get back to us when you have academic qualifications in Defence Studies, OK? I suspect I have more knowledge in my little finger than you have in your whole brain about this topic. ::) ::)

dear Brian,
many blessings.
You yourself posted 2 Youtube videos.
In any case you only got 5/10 for your very poor answer to my question.
You never mentioned satellites - you didn't know
how the S-400 & S-300 system connect together as part of a giant network. tsk tsk.

forgiven

namaste

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Sir lastnail on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 10:55am

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:37pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:04pm:

but you don't have any understanding of the underlying technology except what is written in a brochure at some air show.

Only bothered to attend one show, way back in '88. Boring as all pooh. No, I know more than what you find in a brochure. I am not out to sell anything, unlike like a Defence Contractor. ::) ::)

What sort of things do you know because most of the technology is not accessible to the general public and certainly not written up anywhere on the net.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 12:55pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB8YhrUXfOE

WHY INDIA IS BUYING RUSSIAN S 400 INSTEAD OF AMERICA’S PATRIOT PAC 3 ?

Defense Updates

Published on Jun 27, 2018

INTRODUCTION

India has been in the market for acquiring a long-range air defense system. The idea was to have Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) near the border to counter Pakistani and Chinese aircraft and cruise missiles.

According to reports, India has decided to acquire 5 regiments of Russian-made S-400 Triumf advanced Air Defense Systems and the price has now been finalized.

Currently, Indian and Russian side are working to prevent American sanctions on India under Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) for buying Russian weapons platform.

CAATSA has been deployed against Russia by the U.S in August 2017 for probable interference in the 2016 presidential election process.

In this video, Defense Updates analyzes why India is buying RUSSIAN S 400 even with risks of U.S sanctions instead of AMERICA’S PATRIOT PAC 3
Let’s get started.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 4:25pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 6:42am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 12:11am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 10:51pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 9:22pm:

Youtube videos are not very good for making valid analysis of anything, Bobby. Run along, lets see you find some real evidence. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Hey everyone -
Brian knows more than the person who made the above video -
Brian really is a big deal.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Bobby.
The man who relies on YouTube videos for his evidence.
Tsk, tsk, get back to us when you've written anything professionally on Australia's defence procurement, OK? Get back to us when you have academic qualifications in Defence Studies, OK? I suspect I have more knowledge in my little finger than you have in your whole brain about this topic. ::) ::)

I used 2 youtube videos to illustrate the point I was making - the S300 and S400 missiles are not that terribly reliable - just most Russian gear is not that terribly reliable, particularly once you get away from simple mechanical methods.

Bobby, you have failed dismally to show much real understanding of this topic. I think I'll just leave you here, if that is OK with you? It'll save any more embarrassment for either of us. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 4:27pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 10:55am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:37pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 7:04pm:

but you don't have any understanding of the underlying technology except what is written in a brochure at some air show.

Only bothered to attend one show, way back in '88. Boring as all pooh. No, I know more than what you find in a brochure. I am not out to sell anything, unlike like a Defence Contractor. ::) ::)

What sort of things do you know because most of the technology is not accessible to the general public and certainly not written up anywhere on the net.

If I told you what I know, I'd have to kill you, old chap.

I know sufficient to get me into the conferences and discussion groups... ;)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 4:33pm

Defense Update.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. I've been trying to figure out what angle your favourite YouTube channel was using, Bobby. I've worked it out now. It is an Israeli source. That explains a lot. Tsk, tsk. Oh, well, run along now, Bobby. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Secret Wars on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 5:12pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 3:05pm:

I do not boast, i inform. I am proud of my Masters as it is in a rare subject - Defence Studies. It is why I know so much about Defence matters. Far more than dilettantes like you, Bobby. ::)

It's not rare at all ya daft blagger. It would have to be one of the most common post doc courses in Defence and that includes civilians.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 5:42pm

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 5:12pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2018 at 3:05pm:

I do not boast, i inform. I am proud of my Masters as it is in a rare subject - Defence Studies. It is why I know so much about Defence matters. Far more than dilettantes like you, Bobby. ::)

It's not rare at all ya daft blagger. It would have to be one of the most common post doc courses in Defence and that includes civilians.

I am talking outside of DoD. Outside of DoD, when you mention "Defence Studies" you usually get asked questions about what it was all about. Being from ADFA also makes it much more important than from a civvie university. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 6:17pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 4:25pm:

Brian,
are you saying that you're kind of a big deal?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Sir lastnail on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 7:26pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 4:33pm:

what's with the Tsk Tsk all of the time ? Are you gay ? :D LOL

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 8:07pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 7:26pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 4:33pm:

what's with the Tsk Tsk all of the time ? Are you gay ? :D LOL

I don't think so Nail.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 8:37pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 8:07pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 7:26pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 4:33pm:

what's with the Tsk Tsk all of the time ? Are you gay ? :D LOL

I don't think so Nail.

It is pretty gay though.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 8:48pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 8:37pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 8:07pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 7:26pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 4:33pm:

what's with the Tsk Tsk all of the time ? Are you gay ? :D LOL

I don't think so Nail.

It is pretty gay though.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 8:59pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 8:48pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 8:37pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 8:07pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 7:26pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 4:33pm:

what's with the Tsk Tsk all of the time ? Are you gay ? :D LOL

I don't think so Nail.

It is pretty gay though.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Well, I'd give him a Christian side hug. That wouldn't be too gay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa0EtdtPi8w

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 10:05pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 8:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 8:48pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 8:37pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 8:07pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 7:26pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 4:33pm:

what's with the Tsk Tsk all of the time ? Are you gay ? :D LOL

I don't think so Nail.

It is pretty gay though.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Well, I'd give him a Christian side hug. That wouldn't be too gay.

Real men ride bikes fast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Ck0R1Ha_8

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 8^th, 2018 at 12:25am

Bobby. wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 6:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2018 at 4:25pm:

Brian,
are you saying that you're kind of a big deal?

Nope. I am merely more knowledgeable than you, Bobby. You're just ignorant. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 8^th, 2018 at 5:53am

Brian,
are you saying that you're kind of a big deal?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:02pm

Now, what I saying about crew shortages for the submarines being a limiting factor? Mmmm? ::)

Crew shortage could leave Australia's new submarines high and dry – report

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:07pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:02pm:

Now, what I saying about crew shortages for the submarines being a limiting factor? Mmmm? ::)

Crew shortage could leave Australia's new submarines high and dry – report

And I was right:

The Submarine Institute of Australia president, Mark Sander, a former Oberon submariner, said it can be difficult to attract people to the job, despite the high salaries, because of the unique working conditions.

Submariners can be at sea for months on end without sunlight and they spend long periods away from family.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:56pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:02pm:

Now, what I saying about crew shortages for the submarines being a limiting factor? Mmmm? ::)

Crew shortage could leave Australia's new submarines high and dry – report

Errr, that was basically what I said, Bobby. Please be original. Tsk, tsk. ::)

That newspaper report supports everything I've said, Bobby - Crews are the major limiting factor on how long a submarine can spend at sea on Operations. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:59pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:02pm:

Now, what I saying about crew shortages for the submarines being a limiting factor? Mmmm? ::)

Crew shortage could leave Australia's new submarines high and dry – report

Why don't they pay them huge bucks?
They should pay them at least $200k per annum.
It's a dangerous job stuck inside a claustrophobic sub full of homos.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 7:51pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:02pm:

Now, what I saying about crew shortages for the submarines being a limiting factor? Mmmm? ::)

Crew shortage could leave Australia's new submarines high and dry – report

Why don't they pay them huge bucks?
They should pay them at least $200k per annum.
It's a dangerous job stuck inside a claustrophobic sub full of homos.

And blow out the Defence budget, Bobby?

Would be much easier if they moved their home base to Sydney, rather than Perth. More people live in the East than the West. Most people would be willing to serve there than in Perth.

They are already amongst the three highest paid groups in the ADF, Bobby. They are paid the equivalent of the Army's "Special Forces" diggers and the Air Forces' pilots IIRC.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 8:17pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 7:51pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:02pm:

Now, what I saying about crew shortages for the submarines being a limiting factor? Mmmm? ::)

Crew shortage could leave Australia's new submarines high and dry – report

Why don't they pay them huge bucks?
They should pay them at least $200k per annum.
It's a dangerous job stuck inside a claustrophobic sub full of homos.

It's not enough to lure them.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by greggerypeccary on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 9:26pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

Why don't they pay them huge bucks?
They should pay them at least $200k per annum.
It's a dangerous job stuck inside a claustrophobic sub full of homos.

Have you got a little stiffy now, Gobby?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Sir lastnail on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 12:05pm

Ok Tsk Tsk explain this one. How does an F117 end up in chinese hands ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JKkj2QXOvc

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 2:28pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 12:05pm:

Ok Tsk Tsk explain this one. How does an F117 end up in chinese hands ?

By having a stupid mission planner along with a stupid pilot who fly the same route - exactly - on each mission they undertake?

By being shot down by Serbian gunners who are awake to what the F-117 are doing each night, flying the same route at the same height?

By thinking that "stealh" made them invisible to all and sundry who weren't using their Mk.1 Eyeballs?

The Chinese bought the remains of the F-117 off the Serbs after the USAF bombed their embassy in Belgrade. Funny how money talks, isn't it? ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 2:37pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 2:28pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 12:05pm:

Ok Tsk Tsk explain this one. How does an F117 end up in chinese hands ?

Unless it's a fake news video?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 2:54pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 2:37pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 2:28pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 12:05pm:

Ok Tsk Tsk explain this one. How does an F117 end up in chinese hands ?

Unless it's a fake news video?

Who cares? The F-117 is technology that is over 40 years old, Bobby. It was the first iteration of Stealth. It was when computer technology (used to design the aircraft) was relatively primitive. It is why the aircraft is so faceted. Nowadays, with more advanced computer technology aircraft can be designed much more rounded in form, with better reflectivity. My PC has substantially more computing power than the computers they used to design the F-117. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:08pm

But Brian,
It's the properties of the lossy ferrite paint used that is
of most interest.
You're obviously not a technical person.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:13pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 7:51pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:02pm:

Now, what I saying about crew shortages for the submarines being a limiting factor? Mmmm? ::)

Crew shortage could leave Australia's new submarines high and dry – report

Why don't they pay them huge bucks?
They should pay them at least $200k per annum.
It's a dangerous job stuck inside a claustrophobic sub full of homos.

Why? If the ADF can finance gender reassignment surgeries for it's staff it can pay it's submariners a decent wicket.

How many submariners are required for 6 to 8 subs?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:23pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:13pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 7:51pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:02pm:

Now, what I saying about crew shortages for the submarines being a limiting factor? Mmmm? ::)

Crew shortage could leave Australia's new submarines high and dry – report

Why don't they pay them huge bucks?
They should pay them at least $200k per annum.
It's a dangerous job stuck inside a claustrophobic sub full of homos.

Why? If the ADF can finance gender reassignment surgeries for it's staff it can pay it's submariners a decent wicket.

How many submariners are required for 6 to 8 subs?

The cost of paying say $200K per annum for the submariners is cheap
compared to the $billions they are spending on the subs.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:24pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 2:54pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 2:37pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 2:28pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 12:05pm:

Ok Tsk Tsk explain this one. How does an F117 end up in chinese hands ?

Unless it's a fake news video?

But Brian,
It's the properties of the lossy ferrite paint used that is
of most interest.
You're obviously not a technical person.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:28pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:08pm:

But Brian,
It's the properties of the lossy ferrite paint used that is
of most interest.
You're obviously not a technical person.

That's even older - they were using similar stuff on the SR-71 and U-2

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:32pm

Stig wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:28pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:08pm:

But Brian,
It's the properties of the lossy ferrite paint used that is
of most interest.
You're obviously not a technical person.

That's even older - they were using similar stuff on the SR-71 and U-2

The recipe for the paint would be a closely guarded secret -
as it would be for the latest paint on the F35.

If the Russians knew they could use a radar frequency that would
reflect much better from the paint.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 4:17pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:08pm:

But Brian,
It's the properties of the lossy ferrite paint used that is
of most interest.
You're obviously not a technical person.

Ferrite paint is old hat, Bobby. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 4:26pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:13pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 7:51pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:02pm:

Now, what I saying about crew shortages for the submarines being a limiting factor? Mmmm? ::)

Crew shortage could leave Australia's new submarines high and dry – report

Why don't they pay them huge bucks?
They should pay them at least $200k per annum.
It's a dangerous job stuck inside a claustrophobic sub full of homos.

Why? If the ADF can finance gender reassignment surgeries for it's staff it can pay it's submariners a decent wicket.

They are paid a "decent wicket", Gnads. It's just the mining companies can pay them more and offer better conditions. Both factors you and Bobby are rather too easily dismissing IMO.

Quote:

How many submariners are required for 6 to 8 subs?

Each shortfin Barracuda is suggested to have 60 crew onboard. The COLLINS class has 58 crew. So we are seeing an increase of 2 crew per boat.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 6:32pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 4:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:08pm:

But Brian,
It's the properties of the lossy ferrite paint used that is
of most interest.
You're obviously not a technical person.

Ferrite paint is old hat, Bobby. ::) ::)

No it's not - they add other elements to the ferrite
such as manganese and cobalt
but the technology is just the same.
Different recipes absorb different frequencies.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 7:03pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 6:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 4:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:08pm:

But Brian,
It's the properties of the lossy ferrite paint used that is
of most interest.
You're obviously not a technical person.

Ferrite paint is old hat, Bobby. ::) ::)

No it's not - they add other elements to the ferrite
such as manganese and cobalt
but the technology is just the same.
Different recipes absorb different frequencies.

And one which is 40 years old, Bobby? How useful would it be today? Mmmm?

The Chinese have moved long past the use of pastes and paints for stealth, just as the US has. Shaping and materials are far more important. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 7:15pm

Brian - cop this:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/did-russias-new-radar-just-make-americas-lethal-stealth-16936

July 12, 2016 Topic: Security Region: Asia Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags: RussiaF-22F-35RadarMilitaryRussian

MilitarydefenseTechnology
Did Russia's New Radar Just Make America's Lethal Stealth Fighters Obsolete?

Nope--and we explain why.
by David Axe

Russia is the latest country to claim that it has developed a new radar system that can detect stealth warplanes. But the Sunflower low-frequency over-the-horizon radar likely suffers all the same drawbacks that have plagued previous generations of similar sensors.

Namely, Sunflower might be able to detect a low-observable airplane. But it probably can’t do so with great fidelity — nor generate a useful targeting track for a missile to follow. Despite Russia’s claim, stealth aircraft are no less difficult to find, target and destroy now than they were before the Sunflower’s introduction.

Russian media touted the Sunflower radar in a series of articles in early July 2016. “Russia’s powerful over-the-horizon … Sunflower radar is capable of detecting and tracking the stealth fifth-generation plane or any other fighter jet that was designed to avoid detection,” state-owned website Sputnik News reported on July 2, citing an earlier article in Svobodnaya Pressa, an independent Russian tabloid.

Sunflower and similar radars “see stealth fighter jets as clearly as World War II-era aircraft,” Svobodnaya Pressa claimed.

Technically speaking, that’s almost certainly true. Fighter-size stealth aircraft are optimized to avoid detection by radars in higher-frequency bands such as the C, X, Ku and part of the S band.

Low-frequency radars with larger wavelengths aren’t really affected by the stealth features that tend to defeat higher-frequency sensors. There’s a resonant effect with low-frequency radars that can generate a significant signal return despite an aircraft’s low-observable shaping and radar-absorbing coating.

But the same qualities that allow a low-frequency radar to detect a stealth fighter also prevent it from detecting the same aircraft with great precision. Mike Pietrucha, a former U.S. Air Force an electronic warfare officer, told editor Dave Majumdar from The National Interest that early low-frequency radars could pinpoint a target’s location to within only 10,000 feet or so — not nearly accurately enough to guide a missile.

For that reason, low-frequency radars such as Sunflower are useful only as early-warning systems. All they can do is alert air-defenders to the likely presence of low-observable aircraft in a general area.

To be fair, that’s not an insignificant contribution to a counter-air campaign. But it’s also not new. The United States, Russia, China and Iran — among other countries — have long deployed low-frequency radars for early-warning purposes.

Stealth fighters have always been visible to these sensors and always will be. Sunflower’s supposed counter-stealth prowess speaks more to the strict physical limitations of low-observable fighter-design and less to a stealth-defeating breakthrough on Russia’s part.

What’s perhaps is most impressive about Sunflower isn’t its ability to detect stealth fighters, but its comparative compactness. Many low-frequency radars installations are huge and power-intensive — and big, fat targets during a shooting war.

Sunflower, by contrast, is small and portable, according to media reports. “The system could be put online in 10 days and needs a team of just three people to stay operational,” Sputnik explained. “It does not need much power, it is easy to operate and it does not have much equipment.”

Sunflower clearly trades performance for portability. Where larger low-frequency radars can detect targets thousands of miles away, the new Russian system reportedly has a range of just 300 miles or so.

But there are clear tactical advantages in being able to quickly set up large numbers of smaller, low-frequency radars. Russia could, on short notice, deploy batteries of Sunflowers on the periphery of conflict zones in order to begin getting a vague idea of where U.S. and allied stealth fighters are operating.

That’s hardly a sure-fire way of defeating stealth. But it’s not nothing.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Sir lastnail on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 7:37pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:13pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 7:51pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 6:02pm:

Now, what I saying about crew shortages for the submarines being a limiting factor? Mmmm? ::)

Crew shortage could leave Australia's new submarines high and dry – report

Why don't they pay them huge bucks?
They should pay them at least $200k per annum.
It's a dangerous job stuck inside a claustrophobic sub full of homos.

Why? If the ADF can finance gender reassignment surgeries for it's staff it can pay it's submariners a decent wicket.

How many submariners are required for 6 to 8 subs?

or worse still, pay a truck load of money upfront for a toy plane they still can't use and no aircraft carrier to use them on. Only Tsk Tsk would say that was a good deal :(

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Sir lastnail on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 7:46pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 6:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 4:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:08pm:

But Brian,
It's the properties of the lossy ferrite paint used that is
of most interest.
You're obviously not a technical person.

Ferrite paint is old hat, Bobby. ::) ::)

No it's not - they add other elements to the ferrite
such as manganese and cobalt
but the technology is just the same.
Different recipes absorb different frequencies.

tsk tsk is going to publish the formula here because it is such an old idea and everyone knows about it :D LOL

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 7:50pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 7:46pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 6:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 4:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:08pm:

But Brian,
It's the properties of the lossy ferrite paint used that is
of most interest.
You're obviously not a technical person.

Ferrite paint is old hat, Bobby. ::) ::)

No it's not - they add other elements to the ferrite
such as manganese and cobalt
but the technology is just the same.
Different recipes absorb different frequencies.

tsk tsk is going to publish the formula here because it is such an old idea and everyone knows about it :D LOL

It just shows my superior knowledge compared to you Brian.
You had never heard of lossy ferrite before I told you.
You only found out about it because of me.
You only exist because of people like me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip2WYXbPuuw

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 9:15pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 7:37pm:

or worse still, pay a truck load of money upfront for a toy plane they still can't use and no aircraft carrier to use them on. Only Tsk Tsk would say that was a good deal :(

You do realise that the RAAF never has intended to purchase the F-35B or F-35C - the naval versions of the F-35? It was always intended to purchase the F-35A. Therefore it cannot be used from a carrier.

As for it being a "toy plane", well, I have no idea why you assume that... ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 9:35pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 7:50pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 7:46pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 6:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 4:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:08pm:

But Brian,
It's the properties of the lossy ferrite paint used that is
of most interest.
You're obviously not a technical person.

Ferrite paint is old hat, Bobby. ::) ::)

No it's not - they add other elements to the ferrite
such as manganese and cobalt
but the technology is just the same.
Different recipes absorb different frequencies.

tsk tsk is going to publish the formula here because it is such an old idea and everyone knows about it :D LOL

Wrong, Bobby. I first heard about Ferrite paints when I read about their use by the RAF in testing stealth coatings on the Canberra Bomber which they tested on a Canberra B.6, WK161. over a decade ago. I next heard about them when it was revealed that the F-22 fighter was having problems with them wearing off after flights in bad weather.

I'd recommend you read, Forster, D., Black Box Canberras: British Test and Trials Canberras 1951-1994, Hikoki Publications, Manchester, 2016. Forster has considerable detail on the trials with VK161 in 1957-58 on pages 166-168. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Sir lastnail on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 10:07pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 9:15pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 7:37pm:

or worse still, pay a truck load of money upfront for a toy plane they still can't use and no aircraft carrier to use them on. Only Tsk Tsk would say that was a good deal :(

The only one I ever saw was at a RAAF centenary show and it was made out of plastic. That's what we have got to show for all of the money doled out :D LOL

As for the type of plane yes of course we didn't order the naval versions because we don't have an aircraft carrier but what is the point then of ordering a plane with limited range in the first place ?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 10:21pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 10:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 9:15pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 7:37pm:

or worse still, pay a truck load of money upfront for a toy plane they still can't use and no aircraft carrier to use them on. Only Tsk Tsk would say that was a good deal :(

The only one I ever saw was at a RAAF centenary show and it was made out of plastic. That's what we have got to show for all of the money doled out :D LOL

And on that basis you make such a silly comment? Oy vey! ::)

Quote:

As for the type of plane yes of course we didn't order the naval versions because we don't have an aircraft carrier but what is the point then of ordering a plane with limited range in the first place ?

Because we have inflight refueling aircraft which can refuel them in flight... ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 6:03am

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 9:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 7:50pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 7:46pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 6:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 4:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 3:08pm:

But Brian,
It's the properties of the lossy ferrite paint used that is
of most interest.
You're obviously not a technical person.

Ferrite paint is old hat, Bobby. ::) ::)

No it's not - they add other elements to the ferrite
such as manganese and cobalt
but the technology is just the same.
Different recipes absorb different frequencies.

tsk tsk is going to publish the formula here because it is such an old idea and everyone knows about it :D LOL

My information is not 60 years old.

forgiven

namaste

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 2:16pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 6:03am:

My information is not 60 years old.

forgiven

namaste

\

I didn't claim it was, Bobby. Merely that testing first occurred in 57-58. The 30 year rule meant that nothing was known about it until 1988-89, as far as the public are concerned.

I first read about stealth experiments which were conducted by the US in the 1960s, over North Vietnam during their use of drones in the late 1980s. I'd recommend that you get a hold of; Wagner, W., Lightning Bugs and other Reconnaissance Drones, San Diego Air and Space Museum, San Diego, 1982.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 3:17pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 2:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 6:03am:

My information is not 60 years old.

forgiven

namaste

Brian,
there are 1000s of articles on it on the internet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation-absorbent_material

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 3:59pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 3:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 2:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 6:03am:

My information is not 60 years old.

forgiven

namaste

\

I didn't claim it was, Bobby. Merely that testing first occurred in 57-58. The 30 year rule meant that nothing was known about it until 1988-89, as far as the public are concerned.

I first read about stealth experiments which were conducted by the US in the 1960s, over North Vietnam during their use of drones, in the late 1980s. I'd recommend that you get a hold of; Wagner, W., Lightning Bugs and other Reconnaissance Drones, San Diego Air and Space Museum, San Diego, 1982.

Brian,
there are 1000s of articles on it on the internet:

The Internet didn't exist when I first started doing Defence, Bobby. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 6:18pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 3:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 3:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 2:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 6:03am:

My information is not 60 years old.

forgiven

namaste

\

I didn't claim it was, Bobby. Merely that testing first occurred in 57-58. The 30 year rule meant that nothing was known about it until 1988-89, as far as the public are concerned.

I first read about stealth experiments which were conducted by the US in the 1960s, over North Vietnam during their use of drones, in the late 1980s. I'd recommend that you get a hold of; Wagner, W., Lightning Bugs and other Reconnaissance Drones, San Diego Air and Space Museum, San Diego, 1982.

Brian,
there are 1000s of articles on it on the internet:

The Internet didn't exist when I first started doing Defence, Bobby. ::)

Same as me.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 10:16pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 6:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 3:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 3:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 2:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 6:03am:

My information is not 60 years old.

forgiven

namaste

\

I didn't claim it was, Bobby. Merely that testing first occurred in 57-58. The 30 year rule meant that nothing was known about it until 1988-89, as far as the public are concerned.

I first read about stealth experiments which were conducted by the US in the 1960s, over North Vietnam during their use of drones, in the late 1980s. I'd recommend that you get a hold of; Wagner, W., Lightning Bugs and other Reconnaissance Drones, San Diego Air and Space Museum, San Diego, 1982.

Brian,
there are 1000s of articles on it on the internet:

The Internet didn't exist when I first started doing Defence, Bobby. ::)

Same as me.

And yet you keep making errors... ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 12^th, 2018 at 5:01am

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 10:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 6:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 3:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 3:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 2:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 6:03am:

My information is not 60 years old.

forgiven

namaste

\

I didn't claim it was, Bobby. Merely that testing first occurred in 57-58. The 30 year rule meant that nothing was known about it until 1988-89, as far as the public are concerned.

I first read about stealth experiments which were conducted by the US in the 1960s, over North Vietnam during their use of drones, in the late 1980s. I'd recommend that you get a hold of; Wagner, W., Lightning Bugs and other Reconnaissance Drones, San Diego Air and Space Museum, San Diego, 1982.

Brian,
there are 1000s of articles on it on the internet:

The Internet didn't exist when I first started doing Defence, Bobby. ::)

Same as me.

And yet you keep making errors... ::)

The Fonz - wrong?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 12^th, 2018 at 1:19pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 12^th, 2018 at 5:01am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 10:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 6:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 3:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 3:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 2:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 6:03am:

My information is not 60 years old.

forgiven

namaste

\

I didn't claim it was, Bobby. Merely that testing first occurred in 57-58. The 30 year rule meant that nothing was known about it until 1988-89, as far as the public are concerned.

I first read about stealth experiments which were conducted by the US in the 1960s, over North Vietnam during their use of drones, in the late 1980s. I'd recommend that you get a hold of; Wagner, W., Lightning Bugs and other Reconnaissance Drones, San Diego Air and Space Museum, San Diego, 1982.

Brian,
there are 1000s of articles on it on the internet:

The Internet didn't exist when I first started doing Defence, Bobby. ::)

Same as me.

And yet you keep making errors... ::)

The Fonz - wrong?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Delusions? How unsurprising, Bobby. When does the Nurse arrive with your medicines? Mmmm? ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Fuzzball on Oct 12^th, 2018 at 1:31pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 12^th, 2018 at 1:19pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 12^th, 2018 at 5:01am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 10:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 6:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 3:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 3:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 2:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2018 at 6:03am:

My information is not 60 years old.

forgiven

namaste

\

I didn't claim it was, Bobby. Merely that testing first occurred in 57-58. The 30 year rule meant that nothing was known about it until 1988-89, as far as the public are concerned.

I first read about stealth experiments which were conducted by the US in the 1960s, over North Vietnam during their use of drones, in the late 1980s. I'd recommend that you get a hold of; Wagner, W., Lightning Bugs and other Reconnaissance Drones, San Diego Air and Space Museum, San Diego, 1982.

Brian,
there are 1000s of articles on it on the internet:

The Internet didn't exist when I first started doing Defence, Bobby. ::)

Same as me.

And yet you keep making errors... ::)

The Fonz - wrong?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Delusions? How unsurprising, Bobby. When does the Nurse arrive with your medicines? Mmmm? ::)

Probably after she's given you yours in a vain attempt to reduce the inflammation of your 'Daily Dose of Bullshite'........tsk, tsk, tsk............. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:03pm

Hi Fuzz - Brian doesn't know - if you want to know - ask me.

It looks like the F22 is better than the F35.

https://www.quora.com/Is-an-F-22-Raptor-better-than-the-F-35

The Yanks won’t sell the F22 to any other country.
Same with the Stealth F117 – they bulldozed them into the ground -
rather than let any other country have them.
Also - the Yanks won’t sell us Tomahawk cruise missiles either.
They always make sure that they have a large edge over anyone else in the world.

Do we get the fish that John West rejects?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Sir lastnail on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:06pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:03pm:

The F-22 actually works and it looks like Trump maybe resurrecting its nemesis the YF23 that lost out to the F22 ;)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:13pm

F117s buried:

https://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2014/11/f-117-nighthawk-stealth-fighters-buried-nevada-graves/

Meanwhile, rumour has it that the remainder of the mothballed fleet is being (or has been) quietly buried deep within the Tonopah Test Range complex. It’s even been suggested, though not confirmed, that aircraft will be interred in graves marked with their unique names and numbers for posterity’s sake.

Multiple sources once closely related to the program say that the hangar facilities at Tonopah allotted to the dismantled F-117s are not adequate for long-term storage of the jets and are in demand by “other programs” that will remodel them for their needs. Thus these stealth mummies of sorts will be disposed of over time by being stripped of their useful parts… and buried within the highly secured vicinity of the Tonopah Test Range Air Base.”

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:18pm

Australia wasn't allowed to have any old F117s.

https://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2013/01/top-secret-aircraft-classified-stealth-burial-grounds-of-area-51/

Top Secret Tombs: The Classified Stealth Aircraft Burial Grounds of Area 51

In Abandoned, Military, Transportation / By Tom / 3 January 2013

Four pre-production YF-117s are displayed at museums across the United States. A fifth was scrapped at Palmdale in April 2008 to test effective methods of destroying F-117 airframes. Meanwhile, rumours persist that the mothballed fleet is in the process of being dismantled and buried at Tonopah, miles from public land. According to AviationIntel.com: “Some have even said the jets will get their own headstones with their unique names inscribed on them for posterity sake, although USAF officials have never corroborated such a claim.” If true, it marks a strangely eerie departure from the traditional aircraft graveyard, though underscoring an ongoing respect for the deactivated F-117s.
Unmarked Aircraft Graves at Groom Lake.

The Nighthawks may be the latest airframes to be entombed in the desert, but the practice is hardly new. More than 12 aircraft wrecks are known to have been buried in unmarked graves at Groom Lake since the 1950s. These include four U-2 spy planes, several A-12s (predecessors of the SR-71 Blackbird), an F-101 chase plane (crashed 1965), a Russian-built MiG-23 that had come into U.S. possession (crashed 1984) and two Lockheed Have Blue proof-of-concept aircraft that crashed near Area 51 while demonstrating technology for the F-117 in the late 1970s.

When they crashed, these aircraft were still highly classified. Lockheed engineers have since searched fruitlessly for one of the Have Blue aircraft (above), which was said to be relatively intact. But the search was terminated when diggers allegedly began unearthing other classified projects. The Have Blue’s final resting place, thought to be south of the main hangar complex, has now reportedly been paved over.

near-have-blue-resting-place (Image: Google Earth; Have Blue burial site rumoured to be in above vicinity)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Sir lastnail on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:21pm

Why would they bury a MIG 23 ? They could have sold that to the ADF. At least they could use it :D LOL

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:31pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:21pm:

Why would they bury a MIG 23 ? They could have sold that to the ADF. At least they could use it :D LOL

Yes that doesn't make sense -
it's the enemies plane & could be useful to know about.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 3:14pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:03pm:

That is the opinion of a bunch of idiots, Bobby. The F-35 is over twenty years younger than the F-22. The F-22 was designed not long after the F-117 and it shows it's age. The F-35 has superior radar, ECM and EO systems to the F-22. The only advantage the F-22 has is size and range. ::)

Oh and stop quoting urban legend sites, Bobby. It makes you appear even more foolish than you already do. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 3:17pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:06pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:03pm:

The F-22 actually works and it looks like Trump maybe resurrecting its nemesis the YF23 that lost out to the F22 ;)

The F-23 is as old as the F-22. It was not chosen because Northrop was too busy designing and building the B-2 Bomber to undertake another major defence programme like the new fighter. The F-23 had slightly superior stealh characteristics to the F-22 but was less maneuverable and even less prepared for production - the YF-23 was an aerodynamic prototype only - it lacked ECM and weapon systems. What evidence do you have that Trump would be so foolish as to create a production line for the YF-23?

I suppose anything stupid is possible in Trump-world. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 3:55pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 3:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:03pm:

Then tell me why no other country in the World was allowed to buy the F22?

Tell me why they bulldozed the F117s into the ground
rather than sell any to us?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 4:36pm

And then there will be hypersonic missiles one day so
all the talk of fighter jets will be out of date:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyUTNRIuAqc

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 6:28pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 3:55pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 3:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:03pm:

Then tell me why no other country in the World was allowed to buy the F22?

'cause it represented a quantum leap over all other technologies available, Bobby. The F-22 though, has been surpassed by the F-35 as a fighter. The F-35 has superior radar, ECM and EO properties compared to the F-22. It was designed 10-15 years later.

Quote:

Tell me why they bulldozed the F117s into the ground
rather than sell any to us?

Because the Americans like to keep ahead of everybody - allies or competitors, Bobby.

Tell me, if you invented a new technology, which allowed you to hide from your enemies and strike them at will, would you sell it to you allies and hope it would not leak to your enemies? Really?

It is safer, from an American perspective to retain as much control as possible over such new technologies. They remember what happened with nuclear weapons, Bobby, even if you're ignorant of it.

The secret is now out of the bag, which is why they are willing to sell the F-35. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 6:40pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 6:28pm:

Tell me why they bulldozed the F117s into the ground
rather than sell any to us?

The F-35 does not surpass the F-22 in all areas.
What about rate of climb?

The Americans should have trusted us to keep their technology from the F117s secret.
What a shame to bury them in the desert.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 9:10pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 6:40pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 6:28pm:

Tell me why they bulldozed the F117s into the ground
rather than sell any to us?

The F-35 does not surpass the F-22 in all areas.
What about rate of climb?

RoC is only one determinant, Bobby. You'll note, I said specifically - "radar, ECM and EO systems". They are the determinants of victory before a dogfight is joined. If the F-22's radar does not detect the enemy and the F-35s does, what does that suggest about the F-22's ability to engage in BVR combat? If the F-35 can evade the enemy's radar through ECM and the F-22 cannont, what does that suggest about the F-22's ability to engage in BVR combat? If the F-35 pilot can detect and engage an enemy using his EO systems and the F-22 cannot, what does that suggest about the F-22's ability to engage in WiVR combat?

Quote:

The Americans should have trusted us to keep their technology from the F117s secret.
What a shame to bury them in the desert.

Do you think we would have been able to engage any enemy with an aircraft that was essentially 50 years old, Bobby? Really? ::)

I have a Mustang fighter. Would you like to buy it? ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 9:27pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 9:10pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 6:40pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 6:28pm:

Tell me why they bulldozed the F117s into the ground
rather than sell any to us?

The F-35 does not surpass the F-22 in all areas.
What about rate of climb?

Do you think we would have been able to engage any enemy with an aircraft that was essentially 50 years old, Bobby? Really? ::)

I have a Mustang fighter. Would you like to buy it? ::)[/quote]

These are things that can be changed/upgraded. The F111 we retired was not the F111 we bought. There is a reason beyond price that the US did not share the F22.

I believe we were the only country that were allowed to purchase the F111.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 9:42pm

Brian,

Quote:

The F-22 has been upgraded many times -
I wouldn't be surprised if it had all the latest technology on it.
Also - you're forgetting that the Yanks would use both F-22 & F-35 fighters if they went to war.
If you look at the Gulf War 1 - the Yanks used very aeroplane they had even old F4 Phantoms.

Quote:

Do you think we would have been able to engage any enemy with an aircraft that was essentially 50 years old, Bobby? Really? Roll Eyes

Sure - we would have been very pleased to get our hands
on a squadron of F117s.
They were used in 1991 so they are only 27 tears old from when used there &
they were used later in Yugoslavia.
Old does not mean bad - the Yanks used B52 bombers from the 50s in Gulf war 1.
They still use them now.
You should consider aeroplanes as platforms upon which the air force can add the latest weapons.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 9:45pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 9:27pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 9:10pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 6:40pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 6:28pm:

Tell me why they bulldozed the F117s into the ground
rather than sell any to us?

The F-35 does not surpass the F-22 in all areas.
What about rate of climb?

Do you think we would have been able to engage any enemy with an aircraft that was essentially 50 years old, Bobby? Really? ::)

I have a Mustang fighter. Would you like to buy it? ::)

These are things that can be changed/upgraded. The F111 we retired was not the F111 we bought. There is a reason beyond price that the US did not share the F22.

I believe we were the only country that were allowed to purchase the F111.
[/quote]

No, the British bought and then cancelled the F-111K - their version of the aircraft. Other countries were interested but not to the point where they were willing to plonk down some hard-earned readies to actually own them.

The F-111C, which we purchased were essentially what we retired - with modifications. They had had their own electronics replaced with digital systems, their airframes had been zero-houred but and it was a big but, they still used the same engines and the same aerodynamics so were essentially the same aircraft, just slightly more capable.

The F-22 is a capable aircraft. The F-35 is a more capable aircraft. It is like comparing a PC-AT to the latest Intel CPU'ed PC. The world has moved on, the capabilities have changed. The F-35 can share data, which the F-22 is limited in doing. The F-35 has improved computing power, improved radar, improved ECM and EO systems. The F-22 is over 30 years old, since pen first touched paper (or computer screen) in it's design process. The F-35 is only 20 years old, since pen first touched paper.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 10:43pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 9:45pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 9:27pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 9:10pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 6:40pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 6:28pm:

Tell me why they bulldozed the F117s into the ground
rather than sell any to us?

The F-35 does not surpass the F-22 in all areas.
What about rate of climb?

Do you think we would have been able to engage any enemy with an aircraft that was essentially 50 years old, Bobby? Really? ::)

I have a Mustang fighter. Would you like to buy it? ::)

No, the British bought and then cancelled the F-111K - their version of the aircraft. Other countries were interested but not to the point where they were willing to plonk down some hard-earned readies to actually own them.

The F-111C, which we purchased were essentially what we retired - with modifications. They had had their own electronics replaced with digital systems, their airframes had been zero-houred but and it was a big but, they still used the same engines and the same aerodynamics so were essentially the same aircraft, just slightly more capable.

The F-22 is a capable aircraft. The F-35 is a more capable aircraft. It is like comparing a PC-AT to the latest Intel CPU'ed PC. The world has moved on, the capabilities have changed. The F-35 can share data, which the F-22 is limited in doing. The F-35 has improved computing power, improved radar, improved ECM and EO systems. The F-22 is over 30 years old, since pen first touched paper (or computer screen) in it's design process. The F-35 is only 20 years old, since pen first touched paper. [/quote]

The UK didn't need to buy them. The US flew them from the UK. It was the aircraft that struck fear into the Kremlin heads. It could fly from the UK under radar and deliver nukes to Moscow.

All of this can be upgraded. The f22 is an expensive piece of hardware but the US will not sell them.
Our F111s were our strike capability, we don't have the same capability with them gone.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:24am

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 9:45pm:

The F-22 is over 30 years old, since pen first touched paper (or computer screen) in it's design process. The F-35 is only 20 years old, since pen first touched paper.

And you're saying that not a single design feature changed since pen touched paper?

tsk tsk

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:18am

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:31pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:21pm:

Why would they bury a MIG 23 ? They could have sold that to the ADF. At least they could use it :D LOL

Yes that doesn't make sense -
it's the enemies plane & could be useful to know about.

We already know everything about the Mig-23 - it's an ancient plane by modern standards, operated by a handful of third world air forces.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:24am

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 3:55pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 3:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:03pm:

Then tell me why no other country in the World was allowed to buy the F22?

Tell me why they bulldozed the F117s into the ground
rather than sell any to us?

And what are we going to do with F-117s? They're a short range subsonic strike aircraft with no air-to-air capability and minimal payload.

Why on Earth would we buy them as opposed to F-35s?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 11:56am

Stig wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:24am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 3:55pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 3:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 1:03pm:

Then tell me why no other country in the World was allowed to buy the F22?

Tell me why they bulldozed the F117s into the ground
rather than sell any to us?

And what are we going to do with F-117s? They're a short range subsonic strike aircraft with no air-to-air capability and minimal payload.

Why on Earth would we buy them as opposed to F-35s?

I was talking about a long time ago
when the F-117s were bulldozed into the ground.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 12:14pm

I find it hard to believe that the Australian Government would sign an "open cheque" again for a piece of military hardware that was still on the drawing board ... just like the fiasco with the F-111 s back in Menzies' day ::)

This joint strike fighter fiasco is ridiculous.

Since it was on the drawing-board, there are now actual fighters that are faster and have a longer range out there.

The only small advantage is that this thing has slightly better stealth capabilities. Not fully stealth either.

Then there is that ridiculous fiasco over the French Subs!

What the hell? Why would you go to a French company for a bunch of subs that are only going to be used in "war games" anyway ... that don't actually come off the production line as diesel powered?

Why would you want diesel powered anyway? :o

Everyone knows that nuclear subs are far superior to diesel.

So, Australia stupidly asks the French ... can we have one of your nuclear subs please? ... but hold the nuke power plant ... we want one with diesel instead.

Ya reckon the French didn't laugh about that?

Sure, we can make one without nuclear power (even though we don't actually have such a thing currently) ... how much are you willing to pay for a specially redesigned, never done it before on this particular design sub?

You're willing to pay how much?!!!!

Sure, we'll make some for you ... sign here. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 12:52pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

If speed and range were the only criteria for fighter aircraft, we could just buy Mig-25s.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 12:55pm

Well yes Stig, the real reason we pay through the nose for our military stuff from the US is to keep them happy on the pretext of better "interoperability" during "war games".

We could have bought cheaper stuff such as the Migs without all the delays and crap that has gone on with the JSF.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 1:40pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 12:55pm:

Interoperability is very important -
otherwise how could we join the Yanks & vice versa in a war situation?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 1:48pm

Ah ... but the ANZUS Treaty only stipulates that the US will come and save us if the US thinks it is in the interests of the US.

It's not automatic at all. :(

On the other hand, we Aussies have no hope of defending ourselves given the vast coastline and our puny population.

It's a tricky situation for us. We just have to keep sucking up the the yanks for the foreseeable future.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 2:13pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 1:48pm:

We have a Yanky nuclear umbrella over us and we
don't have a large enough war machine to defend us from any possible threat.
We need the Yanks so we buy their products to keep them happy.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 4:29pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 9:42pm:

Brian,

Quote:

The F-22 has been upgraded many times -
I wouldn't be surprised if it had all the latest technology on it.

Evidence, Bobby.

Aerodynamically, it is still the same aircraft. It has effectively the same engines. It has the same wings and fuselage. It has the same radar which it was built with. Tsk, tsk. Looks to me effectively like it is still the same aircraft, Bobby.

Quote:

Also - you're forgetting that the Yanks would use both F-22 & F-35 fighters if they went to war.

Errr, how could I have forgotten what I haven't mentioned. The F-22 is an air superiority fighter - it is designed to fight other fighters and attack bombers and strike aircraft. The F-35 is a multi-role aircraft - a fighter-bomber effectively - it can perform the role of both a fighter and a bomber. They have different roles, Bobby.

Quote:

If you look at the Gulf War 1 - the Yanks used very aeroplane they had even old F4 Phantoms.

Errr, only as specialist SEAD aircraft, Bobby. The standard F-4 had been retired when the F-15 was introduced into the USAF.

Quote:

[quote]Do you think we would have been able to engage any enemy with an aircraft that was essentially 50 years old, Bobby? Really? Roll Eyes

Quote:

Sure - we would have been very pleased to get our hands
on a squadron of F117s.

Which we would now be seeking to replace with the F-35, Bobby. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 4:38pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 10:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 9:45pm:

The UK didn't need to buy them. The US flew them from the UK. It was the aircraft that struck fear into the Kremlin heads. It could fly from the UK under radar and deliver nukes to Moscow.

I'd recommend you read up about the F-111K's history. Some education might do you the world of good before you display your ignorance further.

Quote:

All of this can be upgraded. The f22 is an expensive piece of hardware but the US will not sell them.
Our F111s were our strike capability, we don't have the same capability with them gone.

Actually, we have better strike capability with the F/A-18F and F/A-18Gs. They have superior ECM and maneuverability. What they lack is the F-111s load and range - and their F-111s ability to fly fast, low down. Why? 'cause the F-111 was designed to sneak under the radar coverage of the fUSSR's air defences. Today, most advanced nations have a more comprehensive defence system consisting of AAA and MANPads and SAMs. Low and fast is not the guarantee of invulnerability as it once was in the late 1950s (which is when the F-111 was started to be designed). Today, most strike packages are flown at medium to high altitudes making use of "smart" weapons. What is required is SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air-Defences) assets, such as the F/A-18Gs, to open a path for the strike aircraft - the F/A-18Fs in our case, to attack their targets. ECM and anti-radar missiles do the work to enable the strike package to survive.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:23pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 4:29pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 9:42pm:

Brian,

Quote:

The F-22 has been upgraded many times -
I wouldn't be surprised if it had all the latest technology on it.

If you look at the Gulf War 1 - the Yanks used very aeroplane they had even old F4 Phantoms.

Errr, only as specialist SEAD aircraft, Bobby. The standard F-4 had been retired when the F-15 was introduced into the USAF.

Quote:

[quote]Do you think we would have been able to engage any enemy with an aircraft that was essentially 50 years old, Bobby? Really? Roll Eyes

Quote:

Sure - we would have been very pleased to get our hands
on a squadron of F117s.

Which we would now be seeking to replace with the F-35, Bobby. ::) ::)

[/quote]

That's "engines" as in plural .... more than one?

The F35 has one ..... another minus.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:24pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Spoken like a true neophyte, Nemo

Nuclear submarines are superior to conventional submarines - without a doubt. However, in order for Australia to use Nuclear powered craft, we would need to develop a Nuclear Industry. We presently lack Nuclear engineers and technicians - we would need to train them before we could build a Nuclear Industry. We would then need to either develop our own Nuclear propulsion system or purchase one from overseas, in order to develop a Nuclear propelled submarine. All this would take considerable time and cost a fortune. If we did not do that, we would be beholden to overseas powers to purchase their Nuclear powered submarines from and require to send our submarines overseas for servicing and refuelling (and yes, Nuclear submarines need to be refuelled with fissionable materials to make their reactors work). So, in the end, the cost of any Nuclear subs would be trebled or quadrupled - on a good day - to fund their development and support. Nuclear subs are not for the RAN until we develop our own Nuclear Industries which we are unlikely to do for at least the next 30-50 years.

The F-111 was unfortunate in that it encountered problems after it was designed and built. In the end though, we ended up with an extremely capable strike aircraft - the best in the region and one of the best in the world. The F-35 is facing more political than technical problems - problems caused by ignorance and fear rather than reality. The F-35 is proving to be technically a difficult but not insurmountable problem. It will also prove to be a capable aircraft and I can just imagine the cries when it comes to it's retirement. They will echo what has been said about the F-111, no doubt. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:29pm

What?

I'm not suggesting Australia develop its own nuclear propulsion industry at all ... I'm suggesting that to make the French redesign their subs to supply us with diesel ones is madness!

If you're going to buy subs from the French, then buy the stock standard nuclear ones!

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:32pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:23pm:

That's "engines" as in plural .... more than one?

The F35 has one ..... another minus.

Actually, not it isn't.

The myth of two engines being better than one has been largely disproved by the Norwegian experience with the F-16. They have successfully operated the F-16 for many thousands of hours worth of flying over the Arctic and it has only one engine. The idea that two engines are better than one is a myth - created when engines were less than reliable and unable to supply sufficient power to keep a heavy aircraft in the air. Nowadays single engines are powerful and reliable enough to function quite well.

Oh, and no two engined V/STOL aircraft has ever been successful. Until you can work out how to make one fly on only one engine, you'll make a fortune. The former Soviets even designed their multi-engined Yak38s to automatically eject the pilot if one engine failed. It was simply too difficult to control otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW4iFaj25bE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47F1S8Fd3qI

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:33pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:29pm:

And pay them to service and refuel them?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. So much for being self-sufficient. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:35pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:33pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:29pm:

And pay them to service and refuel them?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. So much for being self-sufficient. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Of course pay them to service and refuel them.

They can navigate to France you know.

As for self-sufficient?
If we were, we wouldn't be paying the French $50b for the submarine contract in the first place.

Think that price won't blow out even more? What's the bet?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:40pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 4:38pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 10:43pm:

The UK didn't need to buy them. The US flew them from the UK. It was the aircraft that struck fear into the Kremlin heads. It could fly from the UK under radar and deliver nukes to Moscow.

I'd recommend you read up about the F-111K's history. Some education might do you the world of good before you display your ignorance further.

If they didn't buy them obviously the need wasn't there. Did the US operate F111s from the UK or not?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:46pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:40pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 4:38pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 10:43pm:

The UK didn't need to buy them. The US flew them from the UK. It was the aircraft that struck fear into the Kremlin heads. It could fly from the UK under radar and deliver nukes to Moscow.

I'd recommend you read up about the F-111K's history. Some education might do you the world of good before you display your ignorance further.

If they didn't buy them obviously the need wasn't there. Did the US operate F111s from the UK or not?

Who cares? The USAF is not the RAF. The RAF is meant to represent the views of the British Government. The loss of first the TSR.2 and then the F-111K left a hole in the ability of the UK to defend itself and influence events around the world. They then purchased Blackburn Buccaneer strike aircraft to replace them. The only aircraft which was hewn from solid metal, it was capable of flying the same mission as the TSR.2 or the F-111K. ;)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:49pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:33pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:29pm:

And pay them to service and refuel them?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. So much for being self-sufficient. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Of course pay them to service and refuel them.

They can navigate to France you know.

And how far away from the Australian Area of Operations is France? You do know where France is, I hope?

Quote:

As for self-sufficient?
If we were, we wouldn't be paying the French $50b for the submarine contract in the first place.

We will be building the bulk of the submarines downunder. We will be acquiring new technology from the French, just as we acquired new technology from the Swedes with the COLLINS class. We will be able to maintain the Short-Fins downunder, which we could not do if they were Nuclear powered. We will therefore be self-sufficient.

Quote:

Think that price won't blow out even more? What's the bet?

How is your crystal ball gazing going? ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:54pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:46pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:40pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 4:38pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 10:43pm:

The UK didn't need to buy them. The US flew them from the UK. It was the aircraft that struck fear into the Kremlin heads. It could fly from the UK under radar and deliver nukes to Moscow.

I'd recommend you read up about the F-111K's history. Some education might do you the world of good before you display your ignorance further.

If they didn't buy them obviously the need wasn't there. Did the US operate F111s from the UK or not?

So where was I wrong and ignorant as your insult states? See highlighted from my post. Now you just say "who cares".

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:09pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:46pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:40pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 4:38pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 10:43pm:

The UK didn't need to buy them. The US flew them from the UK. It was the aircraft that struck fear into the Kremlin heads. It could fly from the UK under radar and deliver nukes to Moscow.

I'd recommend you read up about the F-111K's history. Some education might do you the world of good before you display your ignorance further.

If they didn't buy them obviously the need wasn't there. Did the US operate F111s from the UK or not?

So where was I wrong and ignorant as your insult states? See highlighted from my post. Now you just say "who cares".

You were incorrect in assuming that the because the USAF flew F-111s from the UK, they were F-111Ks. They were not. The F-111K was a British specific version of the F-111. It was never built.

The USAF is not the RAF. They are allied forces but not under the same command structure nor controlled by a single government. The USAF represents the USA, the RAF the UK. The national aspirations and interests of either nation, while often similar are not identical.

The USAF flew F-111s from the UK for the reasons of the US Government. That those reasons usually coincided with the UK Government's doesn't mean they always did. I cannot imagine RAF aircraft ever undertaking an operation such as Operation El Dorado Canyon. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:10pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:46pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:40pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 4:38pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 10:43pm:

The UK didn't need to buy them. The US flew them from the UK. It was the aircraft that struck fear into the Kremlin heads. It could fly from the UK under radar and deliver nukes to Moscow.

I'd recommend you read up about the F-111K's history. Some education might do you the world of good before you display your ignorance further.

If they didn't buy them obviously the need wasn't there. Did the US operate F111s from the UK or not?

So where was I wrong and ignorant as your insult states? See highlighted from my post. Now you just say "who cares".

Are you reading something I didn't type again?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:12pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:33pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:29pm:

And pay them to service and refuel them?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. So much for being self-sufficient. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Of course pay them to service and refuel them.

They can navigate to France you know.

And how far away from the Australian Area of Operations is France? You do know where France is, I hope?

Quote:

As for self-sufficient?
If we were, we wouldn't be paying the French $50b for the submarine contract in the first place.

How is your crystal ball gazing going? ::)[/quote]

just for the heck of it ... I did a little calculation ...

Distance from Adelaide to France 16,168 km but longer by sea.

Speed of sub ~ 30 knots (Could be more than that - let's be conservative.)

So, about ~ 18 days to get to France?

Way #1
Distance 10367 nautical miles VIA Suez Canal
Vessel speed 30 knots
Time 14 days 10 hours

Way #2
Distance 11504 nautical miles VIA Cape of Good Hope
Vessel speed 30 knots
Time 15 days 23 hours

Way #3
Distance 12839 nautical miles VIA Panama Canal
Vessel speed 30 knots
Time 17 days 20 hours

Way #4
Distance 13271 nautical miles VIA Strait of Magellan
Vessel speed 30 knots
Time 18 days 10 hours

Way #5
Distance 13332 nautical miles VIA Cape Horn
Vessel speed 30 knots
Time 18 days 12 hours

Not too bad.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:34pm

Oh, as for the $50 Billion contract for 12 subs from France?

Looks like we can double that already!

May 29 2018 at 6:25 PM
Updated May 29 2018 at 6:25 PM

$100 billion babies: Defence reveals true cost of new submarines for taxpayers

Taxpayers will spend $100 billion to build and operate the new fleet of submarines, Defence Department officials have revealed for the first time as they also fended off warnings the naval shipbuilding program was at risk of cost blowouts and delays.

While the $50 billion budget to build the 12 French-designed submarines in Adelaide has been known for several years, Rear Admiral Greg Sammut told Senate estimates on Tuesday the same amount again would be spent on sustaining the submarines throughout their operating life, although he conceded the costs were yet to be finalised.

"Many of the detailed costs of acquisition and sustainment will be determined during the design process through choices made but at this point early estimation of the sustainment costs for the fleet are of the order of up to $50 billion on a constant price basis," he said in response to questions from Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick.

Construction of the first submarine is scheduled to start by 2022 and it will enter service in the early 2030s, with the last submarine to be retired by 2080.

In comparison, the six Collins class submarines currently cost $600 million a year in sustainment costs.

Senator Patrick later told The Australian Financial Review he was concerned the government had underestimated the cost of sustaining the new submarines, with naval sustainment costs generally between two and three times the acquisition cost. For example, the government has budgeted between $7 billion and $11 billion to sustain the offshore patrol vessels, which will cost $2.8 billion to build.

"It's disturbing that Defence has done this," he said.

"The variations being talked about here make the corporate tax cut revenue impacts look like pocket change. This issue needs a lot more scrutiny."

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:36pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:12pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:33pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:29pm:

And pay them to service and refuel them?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. So much for being self-sufficient. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Of course pay them to service and refuel them.

They can navigate to France you know.

And how far away from the Australian Area of Operations is France? You do know where France is, I hope?

Quote:

As for self-sufficient?
If we were, we wouldn't be paying the French $50b for the submarine contract in the first place.

How is your crystal ball gazing going? ::)

just for the heck of it ... I did a little calculation ...

Distance from Adelaide to France 16,168 km but longer by sea.

Speed of sub ~ 30 knots (Could be more than that - let's be conservative.)

So, about ~ 18 days to get to France?
[/quote]

18 Days to get there, six-twelve months for a refuel and overhaul, 18 days to get back. Looks like you'd be willing to have our submarines out of our Area of Responsibility for quite a long portion of their service lives. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:38pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:46pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:40pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 4:38pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 10:43pm:

The UK didn't need to buy them. The US flew them from the UK. It was the aircraft that struck fear into the Kremlin heads. It could fly from the UK under radar and deliver nukes to Moscow.

I'd recommend you read up about the F-111K's history. Some education might do you the world of good before you display your ignorance further.

If they didn't buy them obviously the need wasn't there. Did the US operate F111s from the UK or not?

So where was I wrong and ignorant as your insult states? See highlighted from my post. Now you just say "who cares".

Are you reading something I didn't type again?

You were displaying your ignorance, again. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:44pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:38pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:46pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:40pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 4:38pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 10:43pm:

The UK didn't need to buy them. The US flew them from the UK. It was the aircraft that struck fear into the Kremlin heads. It could fly from the UK under radar and deliver nukes to Moscow.

I'd recommend you read up about the F-111K's history. Some education might do you the world of good before you display your ignorance further.

If they didn't buy them obviously the need wasn't there. Did the US operate F111s from the UK or not?

So where was I wrong and ignorant as your insult states? See highlighted from my post. Now you just say "who cares".

Are you reading something I didn't type again?

You were displaying your ignorance, again. Tsk, tsk. ::)

No, you were reading what you wanted into what I said again so you could throw a bit of personal abuse around. You were building a straw-man then getting all Don Quixote on it.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:46pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:38pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:46pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:40pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 4:38pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 10:43pm:

The UK didn't need to buy them. The US flew them from the UK. It was the aircraft that struck fear into the Kremlin heads. It could fly from the UK under radar and deliver nukes to Moscow.

I'd recommend you read up about the F-111K's history. Some education might do you the world of good before you display your ignorance further.

If they didn't buy them obviously the need wasn't there. Did the US operate F111s from the UK or not?

So where was I wrong and ignorant as your insult states? See highlighted from my post. Now you just say "who cares".

Are you reading something I didn't type again?

You were displaying your ignorance, again. Tsk, tsk. ::)

No, you were reading what you wanted into what I said again so you could throw a bit of personal abuse around. You were building a straw-man then getting all Don Quixote on it.

What ever you want to believe. I know you didn't know that the British had actually ordered a specific version of their own F-111s. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:48pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:46pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:38pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:46pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:40pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 4:38pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 10:43pm:

The UK didn't need to buy them. The US flew them from the UK. It was the aircraft that struck fear into the Kremlin heads. It could fly from the UK under radar and deliver nukes to Moscow.

I'd recommend you read up about the F-111K's history. Some education might do you the world of good before you display your ignorance further.

If they didn't buy them obviously the need wasn't there. Did the US operate F111s from the UK or not?

So where was I wrong and ignorant as your insult states? See highlighted from my post. Now you just say "who cares".

Are you reading something I didn't type again?

You were displaying your ignorance, again. Tsk, tsk. ::)

No, you were reading what you wanted into what I said again so you could throw a bit of personal abuse around. You were building a straw-man then getting all Don Quixote on it.

What ever you want to believe. I know you didn't know that the British had actually ordered a specific version of their own F-111s. Tsk, tsk. ::)

It's irrelevant, they never took possession of any and only the US flew F111s out of the UK.
You have shown me wrong in one thing, that Au was the only other state that the US were prepared to sell them to.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:10pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 4:29pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 9:42pm:

Brian,

Quote:

The F-22 has been upgraded many times -
I wouldn't be surprised if it had all the latest technology on it.

If you look at the Gulf War 1 - the Yanks used very aeroplane they had even old F4 Phantoms.

Errr, only as specialist SEAD aircraft, Bobby. The standard F-4 had been retired when the F-15 was introduced into the USAF.

Quote:

[quote]Do you think we would have been able to engage any enemy with an aircraft that was essentially 50 years old, Bobby? Really? Roll Eyes

Quote:

Sure - we would have been very pleased to get our hands
on a squadron of F117s.

Which we would now be seeking to replace with the F-35, Bobby. ::) ::)

[/quote]

Come on Brian - I made excellent points.
You have to be fair about this.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Baronvonrort on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:34pm

The F117 is an old plane not very aerodynamic slow to climb not supersonic, the B2 is more modern and much better with greater payload for a bomber.

12 F22s took on over 100 F15/16/FA18s and kicked their butts without loss in the USA.

With modern air to air combat if you can see the enemy plane you have failed, the idea is to destroy it before it even knows you're there.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:49pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:34pm:

The F117 would not have suited Australia. The f15 strike eagle would have been more suited.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:53pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:10pm:

Come on Brian - I made excellent points.
You have to be fair about this.

The world is not fair, Bobby. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Baronvonrort on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:00pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:49pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:34pm:

The F117 would not have suited Australia. The f15 strike eagle would have been more suited.

The f15 is too old not suitable for us.

The F35 is the most suitable plane for us it can drop bombs and do air to air combat.

The F111 with laser guided bombs couldn't operate in bad weather or fog/clouds/etc, laser guided bombs need a clear line of sight, the JDAMS used by the F35 are GPS guided so work in any conditions, they're fire and forget.

Other planes might be faster but lose heaps of range when using fuel guzzling afterburners to reach that speed, as for climb the F35 does it at 45,000 feet per minute with a service ceiling of 50,000 ft.

Water boils off at 64,000 ft, if you don't have a pressure suit like space travellers wear or cabin pressure it will kill you, when space shuttle Columbia was destroyed the cause of death for astronauts was listed as exposed to pressure altitude above 64,000 ft.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:05pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:00pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:49pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:34pm:

The F117 would not have suited Australia. The f15 strike eagle would have been more suited.

The F15 is still being built and used as far as I know and for good reason. The US, Japan, Israel and the Saudis still use them. There was even an attempt to get it's "stealth" up. It's a very capable aircraft.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Baronvonrort on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:11pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:05pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:00pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:49pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:34pm:

The F117 would not have suited Australia. The f15 strike eagle would have been more suited.

The F15 is still a 1960s design.

Those who have f15s are upgrading to F35, Japan wants the F22

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/lockheed-martin-wants-build-super-f-22-raptor-japan-29997

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:15pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:11pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:05pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:00pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:49pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:34pm:

The F117 would not have suited Australia. The f15 strike eagle would have been more suited.

The F15 is still a 1960s design.

Those who have f15s are upgrading to F35, Japan wants the F22

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/lockheed-martin-wants-build-super-f-22-raptor-japan-29997

The US will never export the F22. We should want it too, cost aside, but it's stealth capabilities mean it will never be exported.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:35pm

https://militarymachine.com/f-22-raptor-vs-f-35-lightning-ii/

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:42pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:12pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:33pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:29pm:

And pay them to service and refuel them?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. So much for being self-sufficient. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Of course pay them to service and refuel them.

They can navigate to France you know.

And how far away from the Australian Area of Operations is France? You do know where France is, I hope?

Quote:

As for self-sufficient?
If we were, we wouldn't be paying the French $50b for the submarine contract in the first place.

How is your crystal ball gazing going? ::)

just for the heck of it ... I did a little calculation ...

Distance from Adelaide to France 16,168 km but longer by sea.

Speed of sub ~ 30 knots (Could be more than that - let's be conservative.)

So, about ~ 18 days to get to France?

Not too bad.

[/quote]

So we're in the middle of a war, defending Australia, and we need to send a sub for maintenance, and it will spend almost a month just getting to the dock to be serviced, then the best part of another month getting back.

...and I thought the nazis having to ship Tiger tanks back to Germany from the Eastern front for repair in WW2 was bad.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:49pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:05pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:00pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:49pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:34pm:

The F117 would not have suited Australia. The f15 strike eagle would have been more suited.

It is, and if we'd gone down the F-15 path back in the 80s, we'd probably have bought some strike Eagles rather than Super Hornets more recently. But we chose the Hornet, which is still a great airplane, and swapping over to the f-15 at this point makes no sense.

...and as Brian pointed out, even the nations with the F-15 are looking or have bought the F-35. Including nations close to us (Korea, Japan, Singapore) which makes interoperability even better in any regional conflict

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:54pm

Stig wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:42pm:

So we're in the middle of a war, defending Australia, and we need to send a sub for maintenance, and it will spend almost a month just getting to the dock to be serviced, then the best part of another month getting back.

...and I thought the nazis having to ship Tiger tanks back to Germany from the Eastern front for repair in WW2 was bad.

What if the sub had a major fault and couldn't travel to France?
Still diesel subs are from the WW2 era -
don't we want something a little more modern?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:57pm

Stig wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:49pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:05pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:00pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:49pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 7:34pm:

The F117 would not have suited Australia. The f15 strike eagle would have been more suited.

I wasn't putting forward the proposition to swap to the F15 from the Super Hornet. I was pondering what would have been the best in the phase out of the F111 and into the future until the F35 finally arrives at some point in who knows when.

The F15 is a formidable aircraft. Not one lost to enemy action with over 100 kills. It's strike version would have suited our requirements.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:00pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

Brian has a Master of Defence Studies degree.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1538261846/134

We've got the heavyweights on here.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:05pm

Quote:

The F15 is a formidable aircraft. Not one lost to enemy action with over 100 kills.

Farq.

2.

Where did all this military expertise spring from? Google? Corn Flakes?

Come on. Get fair dinkum and stop the pretence. Stupid crap.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:06pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

Absolutely ridiculous isn't it. Any discussion on law should only see you talking and any discussion on defence should have only Brian speaking to the illiterate uneducated masses. Now, one question for you, who has said they are an expert, besides Brian the expert in everything?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:06pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

Brian has a Master of Defence Studies degree.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1538261846/134

We've got the heavyweights on here.

I have no reason to doubt him. Do you, Bobby? Other than Brian, not one of ye have a personal far king clue.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:08pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:05pm:

Quote:

The F15 is a formidable aircraft. Not one lost to enemy action with over 100 kills.

Farq.

2.

Where did all this military expertise spring from? Google? Corn Flakes?

Come on. Get fair dinkum and stop the pretence. Stupid crap.

Farq.

off.

Would you like me to tell you the differences between the Spitfire and the ME109? Knowing the capabilities of an aircraft and it suitability to a role, it advantages/disadvantages is something even the people that end up buying our equipment argue over.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:09pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:06pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

'Experts' was my word used facetiously and quite deliberately. You have no credentialled idea about military aircraft, neither does Bobby, neither do I.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:11pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

It does surprise me. I wonder why I spent two years studying for a Master of Defence Studies degree. I could have just got my education from these posters... ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:12pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:06pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

Brian is the real deal:

Brian,

Quote:

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:13pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:06pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

I have never claimed expertise in anything - just far more knowledge and understanding, particularly in defence matters. Please don't lump me in with the "experts" in any topic. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:15pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:11pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

It does surprise me. I wonder why I spent two years studying for a Master of Defence Studies degree. I could have just got my education from these posters... ::) ::) ::)

Ah so you have "credentialled idea about military aircraft"(sic)?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:18pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:13pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:06pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

I have never claimed expertise in anything - just far more knowledge and understanding, particularly in defence matters. Please don't lump me in with the "experts" in any topic. ::)

"Defence" is a very broad subject.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:18pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:11pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

It does surprise me. I wonder why I spent two years studying for a Master of Defence Studies degree. I could have just got my education from these posters... ::) ::) ::)

Indeed. I might as well have never bothered spending six years studying Law and a zillion years practicing it. Some people are born gifted and know all about everything. Not me.

I shut up if I know SFA.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:29pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:11pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

It does surprise me. I wonder why I spent two years studying for a Master of Defence Studies degree. I could have just got my education from these posters... ::) ::) ::)

Your shortfall is that you think no-one else knows anything. Let's stick to law for the moment. Any discussion of the laws of this country by others than lawyers is pointless and uninformed, correct? These people that would discus law are merely misguided amateurs and it should be left in the hands of esteemed persons such as yourself. Is that correct? If we discuss defence, likewise. You do know these things, which planes to buy, for example, which submarines, were hashed out in the halls of experts and there were dissenting views on what to buy. Pretty much what we are doing, on the capabilities of the equipment.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:29pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:15pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:11pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

It does surprise me. I wonder why I spent two years studying for a Master of Defence Studies degree. I could have just got my education from these posters... ::) ::) ::)

Ah so you have "credentialled idea about military aircraft"(sic)?

I've studied defence procurement and written about it. I understand the history and the politics of it in the Australian context. I did not specialise in aeronautical matters though. I just have greater knowledge and understanding than most here seem to possess. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:29pm

Other than Brian....there you all are rabbiting on about an F22, a B200, a ZBeauty, a CC Killer as though you know. Maybe the Russians ought to hire you blokes to fill them in. After all, they need your expertise as well.

Farq me.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:31pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:13pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:06pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

I have never claimed expertise in anything - just far more knowledge and understanding, particularly in defence matters. Please don't lump me in with the "experts" in any topic. ::)

"Defence" is a very broad subject.

It is indeed. It is also amazing how much some people get wrong about it... ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:32pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:29pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:15pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:11pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

It does surprise me. I wonder why I spent two years studying for a Master of Defence Studies degree. I could have just got my education from these posters... ::) ::) ::)

Ah so you have "credentialled idea about military aircraft"(sic)?

I've studied defence procurement and written about it too. ;)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:33pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:29pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:15pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:11pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

It does surprise me. I wonder why I spent two years studying for a Master of Defence Studies degree. I could have just got my education from these posters... ::) ::) ::)

Ah so you have "credentialled idea about military aircraft"(sic)?

I've studied defence procurement and written about it too. ;)

Professionally?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:34pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:29pm:

You know you are adding absolutely FA to the discussion. Why don't you go and Farq u.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:35pm

Quote:

You shortfall is that you think no-one else knows anything. Let's stick to law for the moment. Any discussion of the laws of this country by others than lawyers is pointless and uninformed, correct? These people that would discus law are merely misguided amateurs and it should be left in the hands of esteemed persons such as yourself. Is that correct? If we discuss defence, likewise. You do know these things, which planes to buy, for example, which submarines, were hashed out in the halls of experts and there were dissenting views on what to buy. Pretty much what we are doing, on the capabilities of the equipment.

Overall....yes.

Mate, if you are such a genius who knows everything ( and it seems everything) about human relations, through Law and now through military hardware not even Trump has a clue about, where are you?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:38pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:35pm:

Quote:

Huh? Are you doing a Brian here? Reading what was not written, building a straw man and tilting at him like Don Quixote?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:39pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:34pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:29pm:

You know you are adding absolutely FA to the discussion. Why don't you go and Farq u.

I have nothing to add because I know SFA about the subject. Neither do you, nor Bobby. Each of you knows absolutely nothing about these hi-tech planes and platforms, yet that does not inhibit either of you presenting as though you do. You don't.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:42pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:39pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:34pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:29pm:

You know you are adding absolutely FA to the discussion. Why don't you go and Farq u.

Good, be on your way then.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:49pm

Stig wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:42pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:12pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:33pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:29pm:

And pay them to service and refuel them?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. So much for being self-sufficient. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Of course pay them to service and refuel them.

They can navigate to France you know.

And how far away from the Australian Area of Operations is France? You do know where France is, I hope?

Quote:

As for self-sufficient?
If we were, we wouldn't be paying the French $50b for the submarine contract in the first place.

How is your crystal ball gazing going? ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:50pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:49pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:42pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:12pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:33pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:29pm:

And pay them to service and refuel them?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. So much for being self-sufficient. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Of course pay them to service and refuel them.

They can navigate to France you know.

And how far away from the Australian Area of Operations is France? You do know where France is, I hope?

Quote:

As for self-sufficient?
If we were, we wouldn't be paying the French $50b for the submarine contract in the first place.

How is your crystal ball gazing going? ::)

LOL

There's supposed to be 12 of the blighters ... surely it's not too difficult to stagger the maintenance of them!
[/quote]

Like having 1.5 Collins class at sea?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:53pm

Quote:

Good, be on your way then.

Nah. I am gonna dump on you wannabees. If you had any qualifications to post credibly about military hardware, I'd listen. I won't, because....fact is, like me, you know SFA.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:58pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:53pm:

Quote:

Good, be on your way then.

Nah. I am gonna dump on you wannabees. If you had any qualifications to post credibly about military hardware, I'd listen. I won't, because....fact is, like me, you know SFA.

Well that's a good position to take.

I don't have a history degree, I'd like you to take the same position every time that comes up too.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:58pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:53pm:

Quote:

Good, be on your way then.

Nah. I am gonna dump on you wannabees. If you had any qualifications to post credibly about military hardware, I'd listen. I won't, because....fact is, like me, you know SFA.

Aussie,
I started this thread with the intention that everyone
is entitled to their opinion - so shut up unless you have one.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:00pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:53pm:

Quote:

Good, be on your way then.

Nah. I am gonna dump on you wannabees. If you had any qualifications to post credibly about military hardware, I'd listen. I won't, because....fact is, like me, you know SFA.

Aussie,
I started this thread with the intention that everyone
is entitled to their opinion - so shut up unless you have one.

Oh, he has his opinion, it's that everyone is as stupid as he is, except Brian.
He must be seeking new allies.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:02pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:00pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:53pm:

Quote:

Good, be on your way then.

Nah. I am gonna dump on you wannabees. If you had any qualifications to post credibly about military hardware, I'd listen. I won't, because....fact is, like me, you know SFA.

Aussie,
I started this thread with the intention that everyone
is entitled to their opinion - so shut up unless you have one.

Oh, he has his opinion, it's that everyone is as stupid as he is, except Brian.

No - I want Aussie's opinion about the F-35 -

after all it's his tax payers money that's buying it.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:06pm

Quote:

Like having 1.5 Collins class at sea?

Link please, Dear Expert on all things.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:11pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:06pm:

Quote:

Like having 1.5 Collins class at sea?

Link please, Dear Expert on all things.

You can search it, it was in another thread here, do your own homework, it was only at most a few weeks ago.

edit: I feel generous only because it was Brian that posted it.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1538261846/95#95

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Baronvonrort on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:14pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:11pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

It does surprise me. I wonder why I spent two years studying for a Master of Defence Studies degree. I could have just got my education from these posters... ::) ::) ::)

I don't think any rational person believes you were a lawyer or even studied law.

Six years studying law to become a taxi driver lmao.
;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

I know a few lawyers none of them would even consider taxi driving, none of them waste their time on internet forums either.
;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:16pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:53pm:

Quote:

Good, be on your way then.

Nah. I am gonna dump on you wannabees. If you had any qualifications to post credibly about military hardware, I'd listen. I won't, because....fact is, like me, you know SFA.

Aussie,
I started this thread with the intention that everyone
is entitled to their opinion - so shut up unless you have one.

To have an opinion worth reading, one would need to know what the farq one was talking about. On this subject, I don't, I have no idea, and I don't make any apology for favouring the opinion of a bloke who has military experience and credentials over a bloke who some snake oil man anointed as "this guy knows his stuff, he is an expert" on climate and Cu Chullain who seems to be an expert on everything. So, you'll have to suck that up as my position.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:17pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:11pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:06pm:

Quote:

Like having 1.5 Collins class at sea?

Link please, Dear Expert on all things.

That's just a link to Brian saying it.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Baronvonrort on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:18pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:02pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:00pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:53pm:

Quote:

Good, be on your way then.

Nah. I am gonna dump on you wannabees. If you had any qualifications to post credibly about military hardware, I'd listen. I won't, because....fact is, like me, you know SFA.

Aussie,
I started this thread with the intention that everyone
is entitled to their opinion - so shut up unless you have one.

Oh, he has his opinion, it's that everyone is as stupid as he is, except Brian.

No - I want Aussie's opinion about the F-35 -

after all it's his tax payers money that's buying it.

How much more did the F22 cost compared to the F35?

If people whinge and moan over the cost of the F35 how will they react to spending even more on a plane like the F22 which isn't as suitable for dropping bombs?

We need a plane that can drop bombs and blow ships up along with shooting down cheap Russian and Chinese crap. None of the Russian or Chinese planes have the range to come here, if they come on an aircraft carrier we need planes that can blow those ships up.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:19pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:53pm:

Quote:

Good, be on your way then.

Nah. I am gonna dump on you wannabees. If you had any qualifications to post credibly about military hardware, I'd listen. I won't, because....fact is, like me, you know SFA.

Aussie,
I started this thread with the intention that everyone
is entitled to their opinion - so shut up unless you have one.

I want your opinion about the F-35 -

after all it's our tax payers money that's buying it.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:20pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:17pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:11pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:06pm:

Quote:

Like having 1.5 Collins class at sea?

Link please, Dear Expert on all things.

That's just a link to Brian saying it.

Brian is an expert I'm told.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:20pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:11pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:06pm:

Quote:

Like having 1.5 Collins class at sea?

Link please, Dear Expert on all things.

Ha, so you accept Brian as a reliable source but only on those matters which suits your position. Yay.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Baronvonrort on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:21pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:53pm:

Quote:

Good, be on your way then.

Nah. I am gonna dump on you wannabees. If you had any qualifications to post credibly about military hardware, I'd listen. I won't, because....fact is, like me, you know SFA.

Aussie,
I started this thread with the intention that everyone
is entitled to their opinion - so shut up unless you have one.

To have an opinion worth reading, one would need to know what the farq one was talking about. On this subject, I don't, I have no idea,

You have no idea on Islam yet you feel qualified to comment on that, you even hurl the slur Islamophobe at criticis of Islam despite admitting you have no idea about that religion.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:22pm

Actually, I think the Mig 31 has a range of ~ 3,000 km.

Better than the F-35 (~ 2,200 km)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:23pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:20pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:17pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:11pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:06pm:

Quote:

Like having 1.5 Collins class at sea?

Link please, Dear Expert on all things.

That's just a link to Brian saying it.

Brian is an expert I'm told.

He's kind of a big deal:

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:24pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:20pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:11pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:06pm:

Quote:

Like having 1.5 Collins class at sea?

Link please, Dear Expert on all things.

Ha, so you accept Brian as a reliable source but only on those matters which suits your position. Yay.

Well he is an expert with inside information...

Oh, and show me where I have been at serious odds with Brian besides his straw-man f111k?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:49am

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:54pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:42pm:

What if the sub had a major fault and couldn't travel to France?
Still diesel subs are from the WW2 era -
don't we want something a little more modern?

That was kind of my point.

As for diesel subs not being modern - they are plenty modern. And unlike nuclear subs, we have the capability to actually operate and service them.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:52am

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:49pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:42pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:12pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:33pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:29pm:

And pay them to service and refuel them?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. So much for being self-sufficient. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Of course pay them to service and refuel them.

They can navigate to France you know.

And how far away from the Australian Area of Operations is France? You do know where France is, I hope?

Quote:

As for self-sufficient?
If we were, we wouldn't be paying the French $50b for the submarine contract in the first place.

How is your crystal ball gazing going? ::)

LOL

There's supposed to be 12 of the blighters ... surely it's not too difficult to stagger the maintenance of them!

[/quote]

Regardless, having to sail it (or worse, ship it) back to France when we might need the fleet to be active is a problem.

Conventional subs that we build and maintain here don't have that problem.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:02am

Stig wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:49am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:54pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:42pm:

What if the sub had a major fault and couldn't travel to France?
Still diesel subs are from the WW2 era -
don't we want something a little more modern?

That was kind of my point.

As for diesel subs not being modern - they are plenty modern. And unlike nuclear subs, we have the capability to actually operate and service them.

How about if we think outside the box and have our people trained
to work on nuclear subs?
Couldn't the French provide the parts & training?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:25am

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:36pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:12pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:33pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:29pm:

And pay them to service and refuel them?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. So much for being self-sufficient. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Of course pay them to service and refuel them.

They can navigate to France you know.

And how far away from the Australian Area of Operations is France? You do know where France is, I hope?

Quote:

As for self-sufficient?
If we were, we wouldn't be paying the French $50b for the submarine contract in the first place.

How is your crystal ball gazing going? ::)

18 Days to get there, six-twelve months for a refuel and overhaul, 18 days to get back. Looks like you'd be willing to have our submarines out of our Area of Responsibility for quite a long portion of their service lives. ::)
[/quote]

Sounds just like the Collins class. ;D

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:38am

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:06pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Amazing....all these experts......here.

::)

I'll second that Set.

Aussie will have to floss to remove all the butt crack hair.

Arse_Licker.jpg (26 KB | 22 )

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:53am

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:39pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:34pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:29pm:

You know you are adding absolutely FA to the discussion. Why don't you go and Farq u.

Then perhaps it should be left to Brian to type/speak/talk to himself?

It's a feckin discussion forum Aussie ... not a p1ssing competition to see who the biggest knowall is out of you & Brian.

Practised law for a zillion years ey?

For all the good that did you're now a taxi driver. ;D

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:57am

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:17pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:11pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:06pm:

Quote:

Like having 1.5 Collins class at sea?

Link please, Dear Expert on all things.

That's just a link to Brian saying it.

Well why isn't that enough?

He's the feckin expert

ask Aussie.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:59am

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:21pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:53pm:

Quote:

Good, be on your way then.

Nah. I am gonna dump on you wannabees. If you had any qualifications to post credibly about military hardware, I'd listen. I won't, because....fact is, like me, you know SFA.

Aussie,
I started this thread with the intention that everyone
is entitled to their opinion - so shut up unless you have one.

To have an opinion worth reading, one would need to know what the farq one was talking about. On this subject, I don't, I have no idea,

You have no idea on Islam yet you feel qualified to comment on that, you even hurl the slur Islamophobe at criticis of Islam despite admitting you have no idea about that religion.

Touche ;D

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:57am

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:02am:

Stig wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:49am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:54pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:42pm:

What if the sub had a major fault and couldn't travel to France?
Still diesel subs are from the WW2 era -
don't we want something a little more modern?

That was kind of my point.

As for diesel subs not being modern - they are plenty modern. And unlike nuclear subs, we have the capability to actually operate and service them.

How about if we think outside the box and have our people trained
to work on nuclear subs?
Couldn't the French provide the parts & training?

Sure - but it's a capability that is built up over decades, not a couple of years. And it's a capability we simply don't need - for us conventional subs are better in almost every way bar duration. Cheaper, easier to work on, less issue with handling of radioactive material, safer to operate.

And since we don't envisage our subs spending months at sea in a high threat scenario where they must keep moving in order to launch nuclear missiles at an enemy - it's irrelevant for us to have nuclear subs.

Plus conventional subs are generally harder to detect underwater than nuclear subs anyway due to the fact that they don't need to keep the cooling and other support gear for a reactor in operation when they're running silent.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:22am

Quote:

You have no idea on Islam yet you feel qualified to comment on that, you even hurl the slur Islamophobe at criticis of Islam despite admitting you have no idea about that religion.

You'll never see me discussing the merits or otherwise of Islams as I know SFA about it. Sure, I'll get up the bigots here.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 10:47am

Aussie wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:22am:

Quote:

You have no idea on Islam yet you feel qualified to comment on that, you even hurl the slur Islamophobe at criticis of Islam despite admitting you have no idea about that religion.

You'll never see me discussing the merits or otherwise of Islams as I know SFA about it. Sure, I'll get up the bigots here.

So if you know SFA about it what gives you the right to determine anyones bigotry?

Or is it simply because you're attaching yourself to shirt tails again? ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 10:55am

It's not hard to pick the bigots. For example, you are a bigot when it comes to cab drivers. For reasons beyond me, you reckon it is an insult to refer to someone as a cabbie.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 12:15pm

Stig wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:57am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:02am:

Stig wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:49am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:54pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:42pm:

What if the sub had a major fault and couldn't travel to France?
Still diesel subs are from the WW2 era -
don't we want something a little more modern?

That was kind of my point.

As for diesel subs not being modern - they are plenty modern. And unlike nuclear subs, we have the capability to actually operate and service them.

How about if we think outside the box and have our people trained
to work on nuclear subs?
Couldn't the French provide the parts & training?

But diesel subs have to use their snorkel close to the surface
often every day to bring in air to the diesel motors
to charge the batteries.
They can't hide for months deep underwater.
It's a huge weakness.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 12:18pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:53am:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:39pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:34pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:29pm:

You know you are adding absolutely FA to the discussion. Why don't you go and Farq u.

Aussie and Brian are both big deals:

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 12:29pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 12:15pm:

Spot on.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 12:29pm

And don't you ever far king forget it Bobby.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Fuzzball on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 12:31pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:22am:

Quote:

You have no idea on Islam yet you feel qualified to comment on that, you even hurl the slur Islamophobe at criticis of Islam despite admitting you have no idea about that religion.

You'll never see me discussing the merits or otherwise of Islams as I know SFA about it. Sure, (I'll get up the bigots here.

You and pessary enjoy 'getting up' each other.........not that there's..
:o

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 1:27pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 12:29pm:

And don't you ever far king forget it Bobby.

You're a legend Aussie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZstgDZoLkA

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 1:28pm

And don't you ever far king forget it Bobby.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:00pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 10:22pm:

Actually, I think the Mig 31 has a range of ~ 3,000 km.

Better than the F-35 (~ 2,200 km)

The MiG31 was designed from the MiG25 design. The dreaded "FOXBAT" interceptor. An aircraft that was found, when one defected to Japan, to be built largely out of steel, to have engines that could only be run for four hours at maximum speed until they were damaged. It had missiles which might have been able to destroy a bomber sized target but were useless against a hard-turning fighter sized target.

The MiG31 turns like a barn door. It is also an intercepter - it flies really fast in straight lines to intercept it's intended target. It has a powerful radar which is based on a design which is over 40 years old. It has missiles which can destroy a bomber sized target but more than likely can be out-turned by a fighter sized target.

The F-35 is a fighter-bomber - it can perform both roles it can either be a fighter or a bomber (or both at the same time). It can do it stealthily, with uninterceptable radar, with superior ECM and EO systems, using advanced missiles.

There is a world of difference between the F-35 and the MiG31. Please stop comparing apples and oranges. It just shows how big a fool you are. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:02pm

Merely pointing out that even an older aircraft has better range and speed than this lemon F-35. ;)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:08pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:02am:

Stig wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:49am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:54pm:

Stig wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 8:42pm:

What if the sub had a major fault and couldn't travel to France?
Still diesel subs are from the WW2 era -
don't we want something a little more modern?

That was kind of my point.

As for diesel subs not being modern - they are plenty modern. And unlike nuclear subs, we have the capability to actually operate and service them.

How about if we think outside the box and have our people trained
to work on nuclear subs?
Couldn't the French provide the parts & training?

Of course they would. They are, afterall, in the business of providing such defence assets. The French helped the Israelis build their first reactor and their first atomic bombs.

It all depends how much you want to spend, Bobby. If you think 100 Billion dollars for French conventional subs is expensive, wait until you see the bill for Nuclear powered subs and the Nuclear industry required to support it, as well as the training required for all the Nuclear Engineers and Technicians required to build and maintain them and, oh, of course all the stuff required to service them.

I can just imagine the French Government rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:13pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:25am:

Sounds just like the Collins class. ;D

Blame Australian society, Gnads, not the design of the boats. The COLLINS class are still one of the quietest, largest conventionally power submarines in the world. Just 'cause there aren't enough people to crew them is not the fault of the designers. Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:19pm

I dare say the Collins Class subs have never encountered an enemy sub*.

* Cause the enemy hears 'em hundreds of nautical miles away! ;D

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:25pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 12:15pm:

It is and it isn't. Air-Independent Power (AIP) systems allow conventionally submarines to remained submerged for extended periods rivaling that of Nuclear powered boats, Bobby.

The Short Fin Barracuda boats can be fitted for AIP systems. Just as the competitors to the program could be. The COLLINS class was designed to be upgradable to AIP systems but they have not been (the Swedes have fitted several of their boats the GOTLAND class with AIP).

AIP submarines do not require to Snort (use a Snorkel) to recharge their batteries. They do need to resurface but far less frequently than Diesel-Electric submarines do.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:34pm

Point of order Mr. Speaker ...

AIP subs can stay submerged for 4 weeks.

Nuclear subs can stay under - well, almost "indefinitely" .... but for food supply reasons 3 months.

BTW ... British nuclear subs can go 25 years without refuelling. I wonder how long French nuclear subs can go before "refuelling"?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:37pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:19pm:

I dare say the Collins Class subs have never encountered an enemy sub*.

* Cause the enemy hears 'em hundreds of nautical miles away! ;D

You have no idea, do you? Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:42pm

This might look a lot like our spanky new subs ... ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20H44C7kwQM

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Secret Wars on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:15pm

I have posted on this before, I think Australia should lease nuclear subs from America. We get proven and reliable gear and interoperability, the Americans get defrayed costs via economies of scale and cost for us would be reduced because we are not trying to sustain a building and development program, it's off the shelf, and cost would be further defrayed by less platforms, the greater endurance allowing the use of gold and blue teams, one on ops and one on leave and training.

The only reason we don't is because of political sensitivity about anything nuclear.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:41pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:34pm:

Point of order Mr. Speaker ...

AIP subs can stay submerged for 4 weeks.

Nuclear subs can stay under - well, almost "indefinitely" .... but for food supply reasons 3 months.

Which is essentially the point I made... ::)

Quote:

BTW ... British nuclear subs can go 25 years without refuelling. I wonder how long French nuclear subs can go before "refuelling"?

That is a state secret. You'd have to ask the French. I suspect it would be less than 25 years though... ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:44pm

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:15pm:

America does not "lease" anything Nuclear. The reason why your plan would not work is because of American sensitivities about anything nuclear. We would still need to train our nuclear Engineers and Technicians. That is unless you want us to hire American ones, on American boats? Gee, when do we get to make decisions about OUR boats? ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:45pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 10:55am:

It's not hard to pick the bigots. For example, you are a bigot when it comes to cab drivers. For reasons beyond me, you reckon it is an insult to refer to someone as a cabbie.

? you're delusional.

I know plenty of Cabbies or taxi drivers or whatever.

And if your memory has deserted you I actually support the taxi industry against this Uber invasion at a lower level of the transport provider industry.

So far q.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:48pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:45pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 10:55am:

It's not hard to pick the bigots. For example, you are a bigot when it comes to cab drivers. For reasons beyond me, you reckon it is an insult to refer to someone as a cabbie.

So I guess we will read no more taxi driver reference from you then. I don't refer to what you do.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:48pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:13pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:25am:

Sounds just like the Collins class. ;D

They weren't just in dock because of a lack of crew.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Gnads on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:51pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:48pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:45pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 10:55am:

It's not hard to pick the bigots. For example, you are a bigot when it comes to cab drivers. For reasons beyond me, you reckon it is an insult to refer to someone as a cabbie.

So I guess we will read no more taxi driver reference from you then. I don't refer to what you do.

And no more Brian Big Noting from you about being a legal eagle?

I'm not ashamed of my profession .... why are you?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Secret Wars on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:55pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:44pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:15pm:

It is a matter of political will, there is no nuclear sub option because it has not been lobbied for, until that happens you cannot declare it to be impossible. We have a lot of leverage with America and a trusted ally.

As for technicians, as for maintenance on all weapon systems as presently done, those skills can be and are transferred on procurement, in fact skills transfer is a major component of procurement, moreover it is not impossible that technicians be hired, all of Irans high tech purchases were maintained by Americans.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:57pm

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:48pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:13pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:25am:

Sounds just like the Collins class. ;D

They weren't just in dock because of a lack of crew.

Crew availability is the major determinant of the availability of the COLLINS class boats, Gnads. Time you woke up to just how ignorant you are. Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:05pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:41pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:34pm:

Point of order Mr. Speaker ...

AIP subs can stay submerged for 4 weeks.

Nuclear subs can stay under - well, almost "indefinitely" .... but for food supply reasons 3 months.

Which is essentially the point I made... ::)

You call that rivaling? ;D

Nuclear subs can stay under 300% longer than AIP subs.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Secret Wars on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:06pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:57pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:48pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:13pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:25am:

Sounds just like the Collins class. ;D

They weren't just in dock because of a lack of crew.

Crew availability is the major determinant of the availability of the COLLINS class boats, Gnads. Time you woke up to just how ignorant you are. Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

I'm going to need more than just your say so Brian, considering the time taken in rectifying some of the deficiencies and deep refits you need some comparison of hours.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:17pm

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:55pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:44pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:15pm:

We abandoned our hopes for a Nuclear Industry over 50 years ago. We once had great ambitions - we were going to be the Nuclear powerhouse of the British Empire. We were hooked by the British promise of massive technology transfers from their industry to ours. We built the Snowy Mountain scheme to provide power for Uranium enrichment plants. We created the Australian National University to train Nuclear Engineers. We built a massive weapons testing facility at Woomera. We bought Canberra nuclear capable bombers to carry the bombs we were going to build.

It all fell through 'cause the Americans didn't trust us - they wanted guarantees that any of their nuclear industry would not leak through the British to Canberra and the British couldn't provide them. The promise of Nuclear co-operation with Washington was much greater than the promise of co-operation with Canberra and we were left out in the cold - a place where the British could undertake nuclear tests and test their re-entry vehicles for their (proposed) ICBMs.

In the mid-1960s, however, the RAAF and the RAN were keen on acquiring their own nuclear weapons. Gorton, who was PM at the time, being an old-time RAAF pilot believed in deterrence. He started the wheels for us to build our own bombs. We were reckoned throughout the 1960s and 1970s to be about 18 months away from building a nuclear device we could explode.

Today, after the anti-Nuclear efforts of the 1980s and 1990s, we are about 10 years away from doing that. Most of our Nuclear Engineers and Technicians have either gone overseas or retired from old age. We would need to train up a completely new generation of such people. What ever we got through a procurement process to "lease" Nuclear submarines would be relatively minor. It would be "monkey see - monkey do" stuff. We could not service the reactors, we could not repair the reactors.

Iran, under the Shah was in a similar situation. They purchased large numbers of high advanced aircraft, MBTs, ships. Their problem was they lacked the education background to repair and maintain them. They hired Americans to do it for them. Guess what happened when the Shah fell in 1979 and Saddam Hussein attacked Iran? All the Americans went home. They took their knowledge, their abilities and their equipment with them. By the end of the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian military was a shambles. They had half a dozen F-14 Tomcat fighters still flying. They were using former SAM missiles as air-to-air BVR missiles (HAWKs). They had about a dozen F-4 Phantoms still flying. Today, the best aircraft they have flying are either Russian or simple F-5 Freedom Fighters.

Look at Taiwan in the 1980s. They were heavily reliant on the US for their aircraft, tanks and ships. The US decided to back the PRC over Taiwan and the Taiwanese were forced to keep their older, less capable aircraft in service for decades after they should have been retired. They have bought some French jets and built some of their own. However, they lack numbers and their engines are not well, all that good (being based on commercial ones, rather than military ones).

That is what happens when you're reliant on other countries for basic servicing for your advanced military systems. If their governments have an argument with your government or their government believes it is expedient to back your opponents, their service people go home. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:31pm

Look, Australia is basically one big raw material exporter ... we sell off the raw materials for not very much money, then buy the finished items back at a massive loss.

That sad story can be laid at the feet of "Pig Iron" Bob Menzies.

We should have been the World wide hub of aircraft manufacturing, ship building, white goods etc ...

We have the means to produces huge amounts of Aluminium, we have heaps of Uranium, we have massive amounts of Iron Ore ...

We have all the raw materials, we"chose" to simply export the non-value added stuff OS. :(

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:33pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:31pm:

That is precisely a point Palmer makes.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Secret Wars on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:34pm

Nothing in all of that contradicted anything I wrote. ::)

Tsk tsk

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Secret Wars on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:43pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:31pm:

Yeah but what you gonna do if other countries process it cheaper than we do short of nationalising the industries and copping the cost as tax on employment and skills.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Captain Nemo on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:44pm

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:43pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:31pm:

Yeah but what you gonna do if other countries process it cheaper than we do short of nationalising the industries and copping the cost as tax on employment and skills.

Yeah, the "manufacturing the world's stuff" boat has long sailed from this country ... more's the pity.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:53pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 12:15pm:

Well - are the new French subs going to have air independent propulsion systems?

https://defencyclopedia.com/2016/07/06/explained-how-air-independent-propulsion-aip-works/

In April 2006, a German Navy submarine U-32, equipped with a Siemens proton exchange membrane (PEM) compressed hydrogen fuel cell AIP, made a 2800 km uninterrupted underwater journey without surfacing/snorkeling! This is in stark contrast to non-AIP equipped submarines which can cover only 500-800 km before they have to surface and recharge their batteries by running noisy diesel generators. Comparatively, a nuclear-powered submarine has unlimited underwater endurance!

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:29pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:31pm:

And we could have it too.....if we were prepared to subsidise the industry to the tune of tens of billions every year. And even then, we'd struggle. Wonder why even the independent French are going looking for partners to produce new aircraft?

We have never had a large manufacturing base here on a world scale. Our best bet is to pick a few things we do well, and concentrate on that. In terms of defence, we export patrol boats, we have had quite a few buyers for the Bushmaster, the Hawkei looks promising, there are some defence systems we do well.

Blowing billions to produce a fighter that wouldn't be as good or as cheap as one we could buy off the shelf is lunacy

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:41pm

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:06pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:57pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:48pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:13pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:25am:

Sounds just like the Collins class. ;D

They weren't just in dock because of a lack of crew.

Crew availability is the major determinant of the availability of the COLLINS class boats, Gnads. Time you woke up to just how ignorant you are. Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

I'm going to need more than just your say so Brian, considering the time taken in rectifying some of the deficiencies and deep refits you need some comparison of hours.

I have mentioned this report before. Please read it.

Crew shortage could leave Australia's new submarines high and dry – report

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:42pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 12:15pm:

Well - are the new French subs going to have air independent propulsion systems?

Yes, apparently they are, Bobby. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Secret Wars on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:49pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:41pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:06pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:57pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:48pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:13pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:25am:

Sounds just like the Collins class. ;D

They weren't just in dock because of a lack of crew.

Crew availability is the major determinant of the availability of the COLLINS class boats, Gnads. Time you woke up to just how ignorant you are. Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

I'm going to need more than just your say so Brian, considering the time taken in rectifying some of the deficiencies and deep refits you need some comparison of hours.

I have mentioned this report before. Please read it.

Crew shortage could leave Australia's new submarines high and dry – report

You were talking about the Collins class. So your figures please.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:54pm

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:41pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:06pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:57pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:48pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:13pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:25am:

Sounds just like the Collins class. ;D

They weren't just in dock because of a lack of crew.

Crew availability is the major determinant of the availability of the COLLINS class boats, Gnads. Time you woke up to just how ignorant you are. Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

I'm going to need more than just your say so Brian, considering the time taken in rectifying some of the deficiencies and deep refits you need some comparison of hours.

Already posted them. Look for them yourself. I will not do your research for you. ::) ::)

I have mentioned this report before. Please read it.

Crew shortage could leave Australia's new submarines high and dry – report

You were talking about the Collins class. So your figures please.

Do your own research. I refuse to do it for you. I have mentioned figures before. Up to you to actually read it. ::) ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 7:44pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:54pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:41pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:06pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:57pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:48pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:13pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:25am:

Sounds just like the Collins class. ;D

They weren't just in dock because of a lack of crew.

Crew availability is the major determinant of the availability of the COLLINS class boats, Gnads. Time you woke up to just how ignorant you are. Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

I'm going to need more than just your say so Brian, considering the time taken in rectifying some of the deficiencies and deep refits you need some comparison of hours.

You were talking about the Collins class. So your figures please.

Do your own research. I refuse to do it for you. I have mentioned figures before. Up to you to actually read it. ::) ::)

Of course, you'd rather tsk, tsk and tell people they are ignorant, read what they never said, build straw men, burn them down and claim victory.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Secret Wars on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 7:57pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:54pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:41pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:06pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:57pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 4:48pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:13pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:25am:

Sounds just like the Collins class. ;D

They weren't just in dock because of a lack of crew.

Crew availability is the major determinant of the availability of the COLLINS class boats, Gnads. Time you woke up to just how ignorant you are. Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

I'm going to need more than just your say so Brian, considering the time taken in rectifying some of the deficiencies and deep refits you need some comparison of hours.

You were talking about the Collins class. So your figures please.

Do your own research. I refuse to do it for you. I have mentioned figures before. Up to you to actually read it. ::) ::)

Your assertion dopey, if ya got nothing more than your say so I'll file it as crap.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 7:58pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 12:15pm:

Well - are the new French subs going to have air independent propulsion systems?

Yes, apparently they are, Bobby. ::)

Wow - I didn't know that - do you have the inside info?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:16pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 7:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:54pm:

Do your own research. I refuse to do it for you. I have mentioned figures before. Up to you to actually read it. ::) ::)

Of course, you'd rather tsk, tsk and tell people they are ignorant, read what they never said, build straw men, burn them down and claim victory.

You obviously failed to note where I said:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:54pm:

I have mentioned figures before. Up to you to actually read it. ::) ::)

If someone refuses to read what is posted, why should I bother to repost it? Mmmm?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:17pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 7:58pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 12:15pm:

Well - are the new French subs going to have air independent propulsion systems?

Yes, apparently they are, Bobby. ::)

Wow - I didn't know that - do you have the inside info?

Yes and no, Bobby. If I told you, I'd have to kill you. Do a search on Google and discover the information yourself, is what I would recommend.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:19pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 7:58pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 12:15pm:

Well - are the new French subs going to have air independent propulsion systems?

Yes, apparently they are, Bobby. ::)

Wow - I didn't know that - do you have the inside info?

Yes and no, Bobby. If I told you, I'd have to kill you. Do a search on Google and discover the information yourself, is what I would recommend.

You could tell me then try and kill me. I won't tell Bobby, I promise.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:21pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 7:58pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 12:15pm:

Well - are the new French subs going to have air independent propulsion systems?

Yes, apparently they are, Bobby. ::)

Wow - I didn't know that - do you have the inside info?

Yes and no, Bobby. If I told you, I'd have to kill you. Do a search on Google and discover the information yourself, is what I would recommend.

You could tell me then try and kill me.

I don't think you'd be too much of a problem. You on the turps again, mate? Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:26pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:21pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 7:58pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 5:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 3:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 12:15pm:

Well - are the new French subs going to have air independent propulsion systems?

Yes, apparently they are, Bobby. ::)

Wow - I didn't know that - do you have the inside info?

Yes and no, Bobby. If I told you, I'd have to kill you. Do a search on Google and discover the information yourself, is what I would recommend.

You could tell me then try and kill me.

I don't think you'd be too much of a problem. You on the turps again, mate? Tsk, tsk. ::)

You're funny if anything.
Anyway, line up, tell me then kill me.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:36pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:26pm:

You're funny if anything.
Anyway, line up, tell me then kill me.

Sorry, it's not worth my job. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:38pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:26pm:

You're funny if anything.
Anyway, line up, tell me then kill me.

Sorry, it's not worth my job. ::)

Umm is this where one declares "white fag accepted"?

Just curious.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:39pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:38pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:26pm:

You're funny if anything.
Anyway, line up, tell me then kill me.

Sorry, it's not worth my job. ::)

Umm is this where one declares "white fag accepted"?

Just curious.

Nope. Just not willing to risk my position, that is all. I'd recommend you do your own research. Google is easy to use...

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:42pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:39pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:38pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:26pm:

You're funny if anything.
Anyway, line up, tell me then kill me.

Sorry, it's not worth my job. ::)

Umm is this where one declares "white fag accepted"?

Just curious.

Nope. Just not willing to risk my position, that is all. I'd recommend you do your own research. Google is easy to use...

I'm quite adept at google searches. What should I google Brian? How do I find you with a google search?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:53pm

WTF????

Quote:

How do I find you with a google search?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:59pm

I am Alhijibi Ben Mustafa Ben Muhammad. Death be upon the infidel as a cat upon the meat that is his women.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:00pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:53pm:

WTF????

Quote:

How do I find you with a google search?

He's the one that advised a google search. Ask him.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:02pm

No....I am asking you. What did that comment mean?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:03pm

Any way Alhijibi Ben Mustafa Ben Muhammad is going to bed you filthy infidels. Have fun.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:04pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:59pm:

I am Alhijibi Ben Mustafa Ben Muhammad. Death be upon the infidel as a cat upon the meat that is his women.

FMD.

:o

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:04pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:02pm:

No....I am asking you. What did that comment mean?

He told me I should google. You can read. He also threatened another member with death, should he be banned?

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Aussie on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:05pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:03pm:

Any way Alhijibi Ben Mustafa Ben Muhammad is going to bed you filthy infidels. Have fun.

About two hours late and in those two hours you have not covered yourself in glory.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:05pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:04pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:59pm:

I am Alhijibi Ben Mustafa Ben Muhammad. Death be upon the infidel as a cat upon the meat that is his women.

FMD.

:o

No sense of humour as per usual.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:07pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:05pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:03pm:

Any way Alhijibi Ben Mustafa Ben Muhammad is going to bed you filthy infidels. Have fun.

About two hours late and in those two hours you have not covered yourself in glory.

Alhijibi Ben Mustafa Ben Muhammad will be blessed in the heavens with Allah. Serviced by 72 virgins and a bunch of little boys to fiddle.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:58pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:42pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:39pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:38pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:26pm:

You're funny if anything.
Anyway, line up, tell me then kill me.

Sorry, it's not worth my job. ::)

Umm is this where one declares "white fag accepted"?

Just curious.

Nope. Just not willing to risk my position, that is all. I'd recommend you do your own research. Google is easy to use...

I'm quite adept at google searches. What should I google Brian? How do I find you with a google search?

You could just try, "Brian Ross". I'm the big black bloke... ::)

Actually what I'm suggesting you search for is "Shortfin Barracuda submarine AIP" and see what comes up. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Cu Chullain on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 10:03pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:42pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:39pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:38pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:26pm:

You're funny if anything.
Anyway, line up, tell me then kill me.

Sorry, it's not worth my job. ::)

Umm is this where one declares "white fag accepted"?

Just curious.

Nope. Just not willing to risk my position, that is all. I'd recommend you do your own research. Google is easy to use...

I'm quite adept at google searches. What should I google Brian? How do I find you with a google search?

You could just try, "Brian Ross". I'm the big black bloke... ::)

Actually what I'm suggesting you search for is "Shortfin Barracuda submarine AIP" and see what comes up. ::)

Why? Are you putting words in my mouth again? Is this another straw-man? All I've mentioned about subs is quoting you.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Brian Ross on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 10:14pm

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 10:03pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:42pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:39pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:38pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 8:26pm:

You're funny if anything.
Anyway, line up, tell me then kill me.

Sorry, it's not worth my job. ::)

Umm is this where one declares "white fag accepted"?

Just curious.

Nope. Just not willing to risk my position, that is all. I'd recommend you do your own research. Google is easy to use...

I'm quite adept at google searches. What should I google Brian? How do I find you with a google search?

You could just try, "Brian Ross". I'm the big black bloke... ::)

Actually what I'm suggesting you search for is "Shortfin Barracuda submarine AIP" and see what comes up. ::)

Why? Are you putting words in my mouth again? Is this another straw-man? All I've mentioned about subs is quoting you.

Sorry, I got you mixed up with Bobby. Try google yourself if you know what you're looking for. ::)

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Bobby on Oct 16^th, 2018 at 4:55am

Brian is right - it's all online:

https://thediplomat.com/2016/05/the-deceptively-simple-reason-australia-picked-the-shortfin-barracuda/\

We’ve had quite a bit on these pages on Australia’s recent decision to award French consortium DCNS its $50 billion Collins-class replacement submarine contract.

Nuclear propulsion for submarines has unique advantages over the diesel electric option, chief among which is the effective endless amount of time a nuclear sub can remain submerged. (Nuclear submarine endurance is limited by sailor endurance). Diesel-electric submarines are considerably cheaper, but, even with advanced air independent propulsion (AIP) systems, they need to eventually resurface. Nuclear- and diesel-electric propulsions have a range of other advantages and drawbacks, but these are some of the main considerations.

Title: Re: First F-35 fighter jet crash
Post by Stig on Oct 16^th, 2018 at 7:30am

Nuclear also has plenty of disadvantages. The primary one (for us) is that we have no experience with them, in either maintenance or supply chain, both of which are huge considerations for military equipment.

Then there's the cost - we could buy an awful lot of gear for the price of going nuclear on our subs. More fighters, or more conventional subs, or more destroyers.

And finally there's the cost of decommissioning them once we're done. The yanks are finding this out with the USS Enterprise right now

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a22690208/us-navy-dismantling-uss-enterprise-nuclear-disposal/