Agree with others regarding seahawk’s comments. This says nothing about the safety record of Western aircraft or the C-130J in particular. It’s a remarkable aircraft with much in the way of safety features. The fact of the matter is that low-level flying is very dangerous…the safest airplanes in the world are still vulnerable to the dangers it presents.

I had hoped to avoid this topic in a time of mourning, but I believe that seahawk was referring to the widespread narrative amongst the Indian media and public that, whenever there is a crash or accident involving a Russian-made aircraft, is quick to cast aspersions on the safety of Russian aircraft by referring to “MiG coffins” and so forth. Given this context, it is legitimate to point out that this latest accident involves a modern western aircraft and to implicitly suggest, therefore, that this prevailing narrative might need some revision.

Five reasons why the F-35 don’t need Growlers:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/03/28/air-combat-five-reasons-fifth-gen-fighters-dont-need-help-from-jammer-planes/

This article is shamefully dishonest. “Why isn’t USAF buying Growlers?” asks Loren Thompson — neglecting the fact that USAF hasn’t fielded any such tactical EW aircraft since 1998. By Loren Thompson’s logic — i.e. omitting the fact that USAF is meant to receive EW support from USN/USMC assets — this means that EW platforms must’ve been obsolete ever since USAF retired the EF-111 and that, therefore, the entire Growler program is a massive waste of time and money. But of course if he actually stated that outright, i.e. directly trashed the Growler program and therefore Boeing and the US Navy, well, even the thickest reader would become aware of just what his overriding priorities are, and therefore how much credibility he doesn’t have.

On the bright side, there’s a good F-35C pic accompanying the article. It’s definitely the most aesthetically pleasing variant.

Qatar buys helicopters, missiles in $23 bln arms deals

$23bn for a nation of only 2 million people. 😮

…. and ‘only’ $8bn for the United States. Where’s the other $15bn going?

EDIT: Another site cites US content worth $11bn.

Cellphones were getting smaller and smaller until outside forces changed the trend.

It’s a good thing external developments can in no way impinge on the F-35’s performance in and suitability for its intended roles, then, in the way that the iPhone rendered the existing mobile phone paradigm obsolete almost overnight.

(I’m not convinced lack of margin for future growth is a major problem for F-35, but the analogies offered here are not comforting. If anything they confirm just how vulnerable highly-evolved modern aerospace programs like F-35 are to anything which upsets the paradigms upon which they are constructed.)

Do you own a cell phone? Have they gotten smaller yet have more features and better performance?

No? Features have ballooned, increasing hardware requirements, but at the cost of battery life. Even within the smartphone paradigm alone, the first generation of LTE radios were noted for their exorbitant power consumption.

What about a cross over between JF17/MIG 21 and a F117? Very light, cheap tin can?

UCAV in the class of Avenger or nEUROn would seem to be your answer there.

If Crimeans think that Putin et al will do them any good, they’re delusional.

And yet Putin’s entire claim to legitimacy — the basis for his enduring popularity at a level so as to make almost any western leader in the 21st century green with envy* — is that he put a stop to the widespread looting of the Russian state under the doctrines of privatisation and free-market capitalism and the concomitant immiseration of the greater portion of the Russian populace.

But then the west has never been able to get its head around the fact that it was precisely Russia’s experience in the 1990s which led to Putin, which is why it always seeks to present him as an illegitimate quasi-Soviet dictator on the verge of being overthrown by bicurious student activists, as opposed to the reality that Pussy Riot and other causes western media are so enamoured of enjoy very little support in Russia and the main political opposition actually comes from the Communist Party.

Whether some greater good might or might not emerge at the end of the neo-liberal tunnel of misery is really beside the point. It’s about self-determination: Crimeans aren’t interested. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of history knows that behind its rhetoric the US and other western powers are capitalist first and democratic only when convenient, but to actually express this sentiment directly is an unusual slip of the mask. “Who gives a fark what they want?” — even the Chinese aren’t usually so blunt. :highly_amused:

* Unless we count Lula or Erdogan as western leaders.

I think you’re rather missing the point. Crimea can’t pay for anything anyway: it’s been heavily subsidised by the rest of Ukraine. It now has to rely on the munificence of Russia, while still being dependent on Ukraine for electricity, gas, & fresh water.

Which is no different from relying on the munificence of Moscow, except that Kiev wants to sell the country to the European bankers who will bring their ‘structural adjustment’ programs to devastate the poorer regions of Ukraine, whereas Moscow promises to shower the region with funds instead. If you think the differing economic visions offered under the referendum weren’t a major factor influencing voters, as much a factor as identity politics and greatly outweighing voter intimidation and other distortions of the process as undoubtedly occurred, you’re delusional.

Unlike virtually every other group of impoverished people who’ve ever been subjected to the tender mercies of the IMF, Crimeans were given a choice in the matter, and they chose to run.

blaming the economic woes of Greece on European hatchet men is to ignore how the catastrophe came about.

How it came about is irrelevant (and in any case not nearly as simple as ‘Greece fail’). I suppose the US should never have brought in the Marshall Plan because European countries brought their circumstances on themselves.