What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Status
Not open for further replies.
A reporter covering Chris Christie in Iowa says a GOP activist just "wondered aloud" if Obama ordered the flight shot down.

And so it begins...by next week Limpballs will be telling us it was a false flag operation by Obama to distract from Benghazi.

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

“Holy cow, folks. Have you seen the news? A Malaysian Airlines flight has been shot down by a missile over Ukraine, at least according to an advisory to Ukraine’s interior ministry. The Interfax News Agency — which has nothing to do with fax machines. It’s what the Soviets used to call their news agency, Interfax. You didn’t know that, did you?

“They even had a hotel chain called Interfax and everybody thought, “What? Is it fax machines?” and it had nothing to do with that. Anyway, it’s a Malaysian Airlines jet. You know, I’ve got the British Open on to the top monitor. I haven’t had CNN on all day. What do you bet they have broomed everything and are covering wall-to-wall the Malaysian Airlines flight shot down by a missile?

“I mean, you talk about… I don’t want appear to be callous here, folks, but you talk about an opportunity to abandon the Obama news at the border? And, no, I’m not suggesting anything other than how the media operates. Anyway, it’s eerie. It is really eerie. A Malaysian airliner. It was on the way to Kuala Lumpur. Why would it be shot down? Over Ukraine? It was shot down by a missile.

“This would lead one to believe that it is not an accident. It carried 295 people, and obviously there are no survivors.”
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/17/rush_limbaugh_wastes_no_time_spouting_conspiracy_theories_about_malaysia_airlines_flight_mh17/
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Given their recent history, I would not book a ticket on Malaysian Air for all the coal in China.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top