The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[walrus]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

You all are paranoid. All that was said in the quote was that this was opportune for Obama to switch attention from the border (and other of course) problems to Ukraine. Nothing there saying anyone says Obama is behind it.

Its funny for people who don't listen to Rush they sure know what he says or maybe what someone wants them to think he said

[Priceless]

Its funny for people who don't listen to Rush they sure know what he says or maybe what someone wants them to think he said

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/07/17/malaysian_plane_shot_down_over_ukraine

[LynahFan]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

that's inaccurate and technology available in 1959 could shoot it down anyway, just ask Francis Gary Powers.. There is no way the Ukrainians did it.

Um, okay.... Do you think maybe it cost the Russians a bunch of money - significantly more than $1M - to hit Powers? But what would I know - I only design military aircraft for a living...

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

This absolutely has to be a parody.

It had better be. On the other hand, it wasn't a parody when many people (including some who post here) within an hour or two began blaming Sarah Palin for the Gabby Giffords shooting.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I was wrong. We didn't have to wait a week.


http://www.salon.com/2014/07/17/rush...s_flight_mh17/

How long did it take you (or other lib deep thinkers) to begin blaming Sarah Palin for the Gabby Giffords shooting? A matter of an hour or two.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Um, okay.... Do you think maybe it cost the Russians a bunch of money - significantly more than $1M - to hit Powers? But what would I know - I only design military aircraft for a living...

That being the case, please reassure me that the F35's problems are just growing pains associated with a complex new system (and multiple missions) and will eventually resolve themselves.* I recall the C5A Galaxy was hugely controversial in the beginning: congressional hearings, "whistle blowers," cost overruns, wheels falling off and the whole 9 yards. Yet it became the best, most reliable heavy lift airplane ever designed. My lay rule of thumb: the bigger the leap in technology, the greater likelihood of problems early on.

*We went through a similar situation years ago with the TFX (just coincidentally manufactured in Texas and approved by LBJ) which morphed into the F-111 which, apart from the bombing mission over Libya, was a huge turkey, never capable of meeting all of its initial mission requirements. Even so, the F-111 incorporated variable wing geometry and TFR among other innovations.

[joecct]

That being the case, please reassure me that the F35's problems are just growing pains associated with a complex new system (and multiple missions) and will eventually resolve themselves. I recall the C5A Galaxy was hugely controversial in the beginning: congressional hearings, "whistle blowers," cost overruns and the whole 9 yards. It became the best, most reliable heavy lift airplane ever designed. My lay rule of thumb: the bigger the leap in technology, the greater likelihood of problems early on.

Model 299 -> B-17. The B-29 was loaded with problems in the beginning. Both became workhorses.

[LynahFan]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

That being the case, please reassure me that the F35's problems are just growing pains associated with a complex new system (and multiple missions) and will eventually resolve themselves. I recall the C5A Galaxy was hugely controversial in the beginning: congressional hearings, "whistle blowers," cost overruns, wheels falling off and the whole 9 yards. Yet it became the best, most reliable heavy lift airplane ever designed. My lay rule of thumb: the bigger the leap in technology, the greater likelihood of problems early on.

I worked on that program for the first 10 years of my career - 7 on X-35 and then 3 more on F-35, so I'm not completely unbiased. I've been off the program for 12 years, now, though, so I don't have any real insight on the developmental issues and why we (as a nation) can't seem to close them out. Some of it is definitely just growing pains. The part that is worrying to me is that it is supposed to be a workhorse aircraft for us, and to do that effectively, we need lots of them available. The longer the development goes on (and the higher the recurring cost climbs to build each one), the fewer we will be able to afford - we have to dot those last i's and cross those last t's so we can stop paying engineers and start paying machinists. The JSF has relatively modest payload and only moderate range, so you need a lot of them to effectively prosecute a war in an area the size of Iraq or Afghanistan - to say nothing of Iran or China. If we end up only being able to afford 1000 of them (instead of the initially planned 3000), that will pretty severely hamper our ability to project military power.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Model 299 -> B-17. The B-29 was loaded with problems in the beginning. Both became workhorses.

True enough. You could win many a bar bet by asking what was the most expensive weapons system developed during the war. Many would assume the Manhattan Project. Actually, it was the B-29.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I worked on that program for the first 10 years of my career - 7 on X-35 and then 3 more on F-35, so I'm not completely unbiased. I've been off the program for 12 years, now, though, so I don't have any real insight on the developmental issues and why we (as a nation) can't seem to close them out. Some of it is definitely just growing pains. The part that is worrying to me is that it is supposed to be a workhorse aircraft for us, and to do that effectively, we need lots of them available. The longer the development goes on (and the higher the recurring cost climbs to build each one), the fewer we will be able to afford - we have to dot those last i's and cross those last t's so we can stop paying engineers and start paying machinists. The JSF has relatively modest payload and only moderate range, so you need a lot of them to effectively prosecute a war in an area the size of Iraq or Afghanistan - to say nothing of Iran or China. If we end up only being able to afford 1000 of them (instead of the initially planned 3000), that will pretty severely hamper our ability to project military power.

Maybe we could split the difference: 2000?

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Its funny for people who don't listen to Rush they sure know what he says or maybe what someone wants them to think he said

The squealing, whining, pewling ladies chorale is generally the most reliable source for what's said by Limbaugh and on Fox. Go figure.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The squealing, whining, pewling ladies chorale is generally the most reliable source for what's said by Limbaugh and on Fox. Go figure.

The word "pewling" as the present participle of the archaic "to pule" (to whimper feebly), is spelled "puling."

Good word, though.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

If this is an O. Henry story, we know how it ends for Putin.

[manurespreader]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Um, okay.... Do you think maybe it cost the Russians a bunch of money - significantly more than $1M - to hit Powers? But what would I know - I only design military aircraft for a living...

I seriously doubt it cost the russians a million 1958 dollars to develop the SA 2.
And I bet you could get one now for very cheap from the vietnamese.


Th head of the rebels posted on his twitter account that they had shot down a cargo plane within minutes of the airplane going down. then he deleted it.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Heard this morning that someone that lost a loved one in the first Malaysian crash supposedly over the ocean also lost a loved one on this flight. Can't imagine.

I also understand that 8 or ~9 top AIDS researchers on the planet were on the flight. That was a very costly crash.