Mr F

I think your long response says it all, really.

Of course, as anyone who checks your history can determine, you’re being economical with the truth when you say “I would struggle to think of when I have initiated something.”

You are also wrong in your faith-based belief that people without a clearance have nothing relevant, or important, to say about procurement decisions or technology.

Exhibit A: The fact that many of the people who are the targets of your (un-managed?) anger have been better able to predict the trajectory of JSF SDD than the clearances-up-the-whazoo insiders.

I don’t care about your resume. I know enough about who you are. Neither do I owe you any information to sort out your misconceptions about my identity.

Also, you made another unequivocal statement about discussion boards where “any remotely pro-JSF commentary is culled”. Can you provide a link to one?

GF – Once again, I’m going to ask for evidence. It really seems strange that the term “signals management” is in widespread use in the UDT community but can’t be found on Google if linked to “sonar” or “acoustics”. Is that community so secretive?

And can you cite examples of sites where “any remotely pro-JSF commentary is culled”?

I ask because your stuff about armored Swiss Hornets sounded equally authoritative, but again doesn’t seem to be based on evidence.

Neither have I attacked you, here or elsewhere. If you think it is “defaming” to reprint what you have posted, I suggest that the fault lies with the person who originally typed puerile rubbish about people with whom he disagrees – which would be the face in your mirror, sunshine.

And I am neither Bill Gates nor Bill Murray nor Bill The Cat, despite what you might think. There’s more than one person out there who can spell, construct a grammatical sentence, and doesn’t agree with your views.

Well, well, well… The serial defamer, the Internet Tough Guy who waves his DMO credentials around to show how he knows more than everyone else, seems to be backing down on his unequivocal statement that:

They had armoured tubs

When RAAF was evaluating spare Hornets in lieue of the centre barrel replacement programme, the swiss hornets were regarded as very attractive initial buys due to low hours and professional servicing regimes. One of the “inconveniences” were the tubs, ie cost of removal, retention, impact on harnessing for mods etc… they were armoured up for gun bunny roles as well as AA. ie low level strike as well as trad air

Now it’s:

I knew about the reo fuselage with Ti, but I was under the clear impression that the Ti was also extending from the fuselage to the bolster* area? (*Whatever the “bolster area” is.)

The first statement is very specific and detailed, but it refers to an RAAF assessment of aircraft that have never been for sale and states that the Swiss jets were bought with ground attack in mind, when they specifically were not.

I have to say that this behavior casts a lot of doubt on Mr F’s other claims to expert knowledge (particularly in what he – and nobody else – calls “signals management”), which he routinely uses to trash other people.

It’s a shame for Mr F that he’s not on one of his pet forums, where people who disagree with him and his trollish buddies are instantly smitten with the banhammer.

gf0012 – What’s your source on titanium “tubs” for the Swiss SHs?

Are those renderings from TRDI?

It’s a possibility – but it is ticklish knowing when to jam. AESAs don’t give you much of a clue that you’ve been detected, and you don’t want to emit and give the game away before that.

Also, a ventral pod is limited to lower-hemisphere targets in level flight.

“what about that wingloading?”

Not so much 😀 as 😮 when the customers get a clue about that.

I chuckle when people talk about F-35 for India. Leh air force base at 11,500 feet? Sure.

Mr Fairlie

You don’t run any forums, I guess – but you do appear to be listed as “Super Mod”. Can you explain the difference to the uninitiated?

And of course that forum is a model of civility:

as *****, *****, *-* and *** can’t add up maybe all 4-5 should marry and form a couple…

the shrillness and barely veiled hysteria is but a joyful thing for many and the best thing is that they’re still completely deluded about their own importance in the debate.

******* inability to engage in rational debate, and his proxy associations with these loonies just diminishes his credibility.

**** is a fool who produces only lies and spite.

And here’s gf0012 over at another forum:

***** isn’t a benchmark – he’s a magazine hack – and an embittered one who can’t suspend his own idealogical [sic] animosity and stay professional as a commentator.

All of these comments seem to pass the moderator test.

Enjoy the chook on the barbie on the beach,

LO

If anyone else here thinks this is boring and irrelevant, I’ll quit for now, but I think the forum has a right to know the true character of Mr Gary Fairlie and his online buddies.