mack8The F-35 soap-opera continues. OTE report for 2012 shows a host of problems , unmet testing schedule, unmet performance criteria etc etc.
Few highlights:
Jittering with the HMD- still going
Structural cracks in B- lower fuselage
Unmet flight performance-all
High speed flight limitation- RAM peels off at rear.
IFR problems with A
Radar problems
…and so on, and so on.
OTE report:
http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/f-35-jsf-dote-fy12-annual-report.pdf
Some news on the matter.
http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/2013/01/13/pentagon-report-cites-lack-of-maturity-of-lockheed-f-35-jet
mack8According to recent news FIVE T-50 are supposed to be moved to Akhtubinsk for state trials in march. That make some believe 50-5 must take to the air before march. We shall see. Same news say that there are supposed to be EIGHT T-50 delivered to Akhtubinsk before the end of the year, that means 3 more to fly before end of 2013. Again, we shall see. Possible if they started LRIP already.
mack8Peru’s MiG-29 are upgraded 9.13/9.13SEs and UBs (which they bought in the nineties). Apparently they are at a standard somewhat similar to SM, full A-A and A-G PGM capability, IFR , modernized radar etc.( two-seaters have CHFL strakes ahead of fins like the 9.53 UBs, plus IFR)
There were 5 Su-34 delivered to Baltimor/Voronezh in December , there are 5 more to be ferried to their unit about January 15 apparently.
mack8Speaking of Su-35S , does anyone have a rough idea when the 6 Su-35S delivered ( formally ) last year will be ferried to their units? Thanks.:)
mack8That was rather crap. Were those Su-35s? They’re day dreaming. 🙂
mack8I know enough about history, thank you, do you? Looking at only the last 20 years, since the cold war, at the behaviour of your “peaceful” and “freedom loving” USA, and the trail of literally MILLIONS of dead bodies, i think it’s pretty clear that what i said above makes rather more sense than this utterly pathetic pro-american propaganda. You (and they) are not fooling no one with half a brain. The above mentioned GENOCIDE is where my “grudge” is coming from. 😡
Anyway, speaking of Iran, i actually at first (years back) when i heard the Shah era was marked by repression comparable to other dictatorships in ME, i thought the iranian folks saying those things were just trying to pay lip service to the Islamic leadership. It appears they were mostly right though. But then years back i thought the same about Egypt or Saudi Arabia, since they were allies with US ( you know the justice and freedom loving , democratic one blah blah) in my naive at the time mind they must have been fairly democratic countries , surely. But it was not the case.
mack8It would be a very different world now if he was still in power. Consider this:
No Iran Iraq war.
No invasion of Kuwait and Gulf war more then likely.
Saddam still in power and still friendly with Western nations.
Which means no huge presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia.
So no reason for the Saudi funded Al Quaeda to attack America.
So no September 11th
So no 2001 Afghan invasion
So no 2003 Iraq invasion…A very different world.
You think so? Imo, you could be assured that the good ole war loving USA would have find other places/countries to “liberate” (as in taking control of their oil and resources and transforming them into vassals) , or ostensibly protect “allies” from “threats”-real or imaginary ( i.e, have them buy their s**t). The american militaro-industrial complex does not like peace folks, it is not profitable for them. They hate peace. As long as they make their TRILLIONS, who cares how many “arab terrorists” must die… 😡
Anyway, what were the immediate orders for IIAF that were cancelled after 1979, is it correct to say 7 E-3A, 93 additional F-14, 160+140 optional F-16, plus perhaps an order or license production for F/A-18L?
Imo, even if the 1979 revolution would not occur, something will still happen in perhaps the eighties , or in ten years at most. And if not, this arab spring thing would have surely engulfed Iran too, and of course it would be very fun to have watched the yanks and israelis face having an Iran turning 180 degrees over night, but equipped with hundreds of state of the art fighters and air defences, army , navy etc. And possibly nuclear too (or very close to it).
Not sure what would be status of Iraq though, they might have been “liberated” by the americans as in OTL, unless they went nuclear before the fall of USSR (no Iran-Iraq war means imo perhaps a heavy involvement of Iraq in the 1982 war, as revenge against the Osirak attack -assuming a war didn’t actually erupted in 1981 over the Osirak bombing!). Perhaps they would have worked hard and managed to go nuclear before 1990, in which case doubtful they would be invaded on the other hand they would have served the american militaro-industrial complex very well as the “bogeyman” (like Iran or North Korea or China today).
mack8Has by any chance word surfaced if 50-4 has been painted yet , and if so , is it going to have the same cammo as 1, 2 and 3?:)
mack8Lol, what’s with the MiG-31 in a Sukhoi calendar ?:D
mack8Besides, by the time the Typhoon goes to Taiwan, it will be fairly obsolete anyway, the chinese with things like J-20, J-31, UCAVs and high performance SAMs, and other systems available won’t be much worried by them. On the other hand, even if the UK would want to sell Typhoons to Taiwan, their american “friends” will dully sabotage any such deals, you wouldn’t really think they will allow someone else to milk the $$$ from this particular “cow” do you? (i.e the artificially maintained tension between China and Taiwan- god knows what kind of hideously dirty acts are played behind the scenes)
mack8This is the only thing that matters.
None of the people living on the islands are invaders. They are the result of colonialism, but they are not to blame for it. Their wishes are all that matter, and Argentinas aggression has only made a difficult situation worse.
These people are not a problem that needs dealing with. They are people, and have more claim over the islands than any of the other nations involved in the islands past.
Perhaps Argentina should look to friendship instead of provocation?
Pal, you perhaps don’t see it, as you seem to be unfortunately blinded by ultra-nationalism (which is highly regretable for a Brit, as in my experience the vast majority are highly educated and very humanist peoples, usually far away of such pathetic beliefs as ultra-nationalism) but there’s a big difference between the islanders seeing themselves as British, subjects of the Queen etc, and considering the land they are on, obtained through very regretable means, as British! They are entitled to and have all the rights to consider themselves British (i don’t think anyone can argue with that), but they cannot ever lay claim on that island as British.
We may be talking here of H-31 totting Flankers and all this “fun stuff” , but like i said the only reasonable option is for all sides to sit and talk, and reach an amiable agreement. It’s not just the argentinian “aggressor’s” fault for this situation as you so desperately try to present (and perhaps believe-sadly). It takes two to tango. (no pun intended!)
I sincerely hope that the UK and Argentina will find a way to put and end to this issue and foster mutually beneficial collaboration from then on. South America has a great potential for growing, and such a collaboration will be a win for both countries.
mack8two or three guys attempted to explain it to you but its not getting through to your head.
the Islands were UNINHABITED when first settled by Europeans. There were NO ARGENTINIANS there.
while there’s a possibility indigenous tribes could have went there, the first discovered by the Portuguese (some say British), and first settled by the French who named it after Saint Malo (and that’s how you get Malvinas).
At the same time the British created Port Egmont in a different part of the island.No Spanish speaking party was involved until later when the Spanish Empire (Not Argentine) kicked out the French and nearly started a war with the British. In other words they came AFTER. During that time Spain did encourage settlement into the Falklands but later withdrew following the disintegration of its empire.
Doesn’t matter if it was uninhabited or not. You said it yourself , the portuguese, the french, the british etc. CAME and went. From practically the OTHER side of the world. You tell me if you have a piece of uninhabited land you’ll find perfectly ok for a stranger to come there, settle on it and claim it his ? Argentina is for better and for worse the descendant of whatever population/s was/were living in those areas BEFORE the arrival of colonialism. As such, they have a reasonable right to talk don’t you think.
mack8There is only one party, the people who live on the islands. Any resentment toward Argentina is entirely their own fault, and deserved. Because of their aggression, the people who live on the Islands will never want to become part of Argentina. It would also be political suicide for any UK government to negotiate on the issue.
If you’re going to be geographic, Chile is as close to the Falklands as Argentina is.
There is no middle ground. The are people, generations that have lived there for almost 200 years, their fate is their own to choose, not for foreign diplomats to decide. These people are not ‘chips’ to be bargained with at a table.
Argentina are one of the largest countries on earth, with huge unpopulated areas. Their greed is nothing but 21st century colonialism.
That’s your view, but not necessarily corresponding to the reality, morality or justice, sorry. Those islands has been made british by force of arms, period. That truth cannot be hidden or ignored , or misinterpreted. Ultranationalism is certainly not the answer for the future of the Falklands. Dialogue is.
mack8Without wanting to bring too much politics here, well, there’s a small problem with your arguments. We’re not talking about the Isle of Man here, or some other island in the UK’s territorial waters. The Falklands are eight THOUSAND kilometers away from the UK. Eight THOUSAND kilometers. Hell the place wasn’t known in the UK until few hundred years ago. You can’t consider the spinoffs of ancient colonialism as valid arguments today.
Anyway, like i said, both parties must sit at the table and talk. I think it’s not unreasonable at all to have something like a semiautonomous Falklands or something like that. Probably the argentinians will be be entirely happy with even a de facto recognition of the isles being part of Argentina, without actually having to set foot on the damn island. If indeed the talks of huge amounts of resources around those islands (oil?) are true, then it’s even more imperative that the UK does what is mature and morally right. If access to those resources is highly desirable, it will be better and more advantageous for both sides to work together for mutual benefits. I hope the UK won’t go the “american way”.
mack8I would hardly call an F-16 MLU junk mack8, it is a perfectly reasonable solution to both countries defence needs. It is multi role, carries all the latest munitions and can carry a range of different air to air missiles from AMRAAM to IRIS-T. Apparently the Portuguese examples are well maintained and have plenty of flight hours left.
Another nice thing about the F-16 is the large number of overhaul centres to chose from.
While i’m not exactly up to date with what standards of F-16 Portugal has, i thought they were in the process of upgrading to MLU part of their F-16 fleet, and selling the rest ( the old OCUs?)
Sign In
