3900 replies to this topic

[DogOnPorch]

still too fast, hey? Slow down!

it would seem you've got it quite conveniently covered (your backside, that is)... vests on, it's a problem; vests off, it's a problem!

as for your latest, 'expert opinion', regarding the two most recent incidents (the ones you're attributing to "incomplete g-suits" (vests off), I'm reading where the USAF is attributing those two recent incidents to, "malfunctions in the F22's life support systems - so called mechanical problems". Perhaps your slow typing distracted you from this revelation, hey?

uhhh, by the by, any 'expert opinion' on the 'hypoxia like problem' encountered by that F-22 ground crew? Ground crews don't wear g-suits, right?

So when is the F-22 heading for the Boneyard? It's a POS, right? America, unlike Canada, doesn't hang onto aircraft that do not work or get old. This is all really very silly. The US will figure out the problems...problems that occur in every new system...new designs will come forward and get built. Canada will buy new aircraft eventually...unless a huge meteor strikes...or the Occupy Movement takes over Canada...which ever comes first. You'll continue to hate the military, no matter what happens.

[waldo]

So when is the F-22 heading for the Boneyard? It's a POS, right? America, unlike Canada, doesn't hang onto aircraft that do not work or get old. This is all really very silly. The US will figure out the problems...problems that occur in every new system...new designs will come forward and get built.

buddy, twas not I who brought forward a discussion over the F-22 "hypoxia type" problems; nor I who went out of my way to attempt to find commonality with F-22 "parts/systems" in "other jets"... presuming to suggest that since the problem hasn't been observed/reported in "other jets", the related F-22 "parts/systems" can't be at fault; i.e., that problem "will never exist in the JSFail F-35". That wasn't me. However, I certainly will chime in when a particular MLW member trots out his shinola act. As for the F-22 being, as you say, "new"... a decade of development before being introduced in 2005. New? Really? Not too far from that 2 decade milestone, hey? Oh, by the by... do you think we'll ever actually see that 'big stick' unveiled - saving it for... the BigOne, hey?

Canada will buy new aircraft eventually...unless a huge meteor strikes...or the Occupy Movement takes over Canada...which ever comes first. You'll continue to hate the military, no matter what happens.

hate the military? I've offered absolutely no statements that would support your simpering assessment. Quite the contrary, I've suggested alternate/better ways monies should be directed. You, on the other hand, subscribe to a bottomless money pit so far as any/all military expenditure is considered - particularly the most shiny ones, hey? It's unfortunate for you that you haven't the wherewithal to actually make and argue your position; one that is beholding to your ever present imaginary Cold War "boogeyman invaders"! Instead, you prefer to continually attempt to derail this thread with your jingo-porn.

carry on

Edited by waldo, 13 July 2012 - 06:35 AM.

[DogOnPorch]

The last thing I am is your buddy.

It doesn't matter what you and I think, oh overly verbose one with SFBs. But, you are entertaining when you pretend you're a 'Gift to Canada'. Tell us again how you love the military... You'd have Canadians flying 20 years gone garbage built in Buttkissystan if you had your way.

BTW, I've stated I, personally, don't want the F-35. But, your brain cells are incapable of recalling that. Perhaps you'll have me voting for Harper, next.

(spits on ground)

Edited by DogOnPorch, 13 July 2012 - 07:49 AM.

[waldo]

oh overly verbose one with SFB

(spits on ground)

SFB??? Stupid Facebook? Look, I've already told you there's no sense in trying to friend me... I'm not on the Facebook!

[DogOnPorch]

SFB??? Stupid Facebook? Look, I've already told you there's no sense in trying to friend me... I'm not on the Facebook!

That's all you have? Try again when your insults improve.

But, I think others will agree with me when I say 'no aircraft is suitable for waldo'. Your contempt for Canada's military is MORE than obvious.

Edited by DogOnPorch, 13 July 2012 - 08:53 AM.

[waldo]

That's all you have? Try again when your insults improve.

I've most certainly not insulted you... personally. I'm not the one who just offered comment on your, as you stated, SFBs.

But, I think others will agree with me when I say 'no aircraft is suitable for waldo'. Your contempt for Canada's military is MORE than obvious.

see MLW member 'DogOnPorch' selective recall in regards discussion around alternatives. You can keep repeating your purposeful stated untruth; again, I've shown and expressed no contempt for Canada's military. I most certainly have criticized and expressed reservations over the Canadian military handling/hand-off of the F-35.

[DogOnPorch]

I've most certainly not insulted you... personally. I'm not the one who just offered comment on your, as you stated, SFBs.


see MLW member 'DogOnPorch' selective recall in regards discussion around alternatives. You can keep repeating your purposeful stated untruth; again, I've shown and expressed no contempt for Canada's military. I most certainly have criticized and expressed reservations over the Canadian military handling/hand-off of the F-35.

I highly doubt anyone cares. You've shown your colours.

[Derek L]

I was going to blow this off initially with the standard pat answer to anyone that beaks off about 'bandwidth' - "buy a bigger pipe!" Before doing that I thought I'd check a bit on just how much of a smokescreen you were throwing up as you rushed mightily forward against even the suggestion of unmanned UAV touching upon the sanctity of your venerable manned F-35 platform centric myopia. Hey now, is this secure and robust enough?:

- further extension on the existing Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) satellite system

- continuing to maximize commercial (as available/appropriate), while divesting in favour of a military bandwidth migration path, one aligning with WGS extension

- oh look, another international partnership - Canada’s Participation in the Wideband Global Satellite (WGS) Communications System

and, oh ya - "buy a bigger pipe!"

To clarify, your contention is that there is no current shortage of “bandwidth” that would effect the operation of remotely piloted vehicles?

[Derek L]

still too fast, hey? Slow down!

it would seem you've got it quite conveniently covered (your backside, that is)... vests on, it's a problem; vests off, it's a problem!

You're still having a problem with the concept?

as for your latest, 'expert opinion', regarding the two most recent incidents (the ones you're attributing to "incomplete g-suits" (vests off), I'm reading where the USAF is attributing those two recent incidents to, "malfunctions in the F22's life support systems - so called mechanical problems". Perhaps your slow typing distracted you from this revelation, hey?

uhhh, by the by, any 'expert opinion' on the 'hypoxia like problem' encountered by that F-22 ground crew? Ground crews don't wear g-suits, right?

Source?

[waldo]

To clarify, your contention is that there is no current shortage of “bandwidth” that would effect the operation of remotely piloted vehicles?

to clarify, your contention is that... not only is there not a secure and robust enough bandwidth, they haven't even figured out how to, as you say, "make a secure and robust enough bandwidth"? Is that your contention?

Once they figure out how to make a secure and robust enough bandwidth……

[waldo]

You're still having a problem with the concept?

no - not at all

Source?

would you really like me to fire you up a lmgtfy link?

[waldo]

see MLW member 'DogOnPorch' selective recall in regards discussion around alternatives. You can keep repeating your purposeful stated untruth; again, I've shown and expressed no contempt for Canada's military. I most certainly have criticized and expressed reservations over the Canadian military handling/hand-off of the F-35.

I highly doubt anyone cares. You've shown your colours.

my colours? How do you like the following colours?:

waldo factoid: in the so-called 'jet age', Canada has participated in 5 varying levels of conflict, with the following fighter jet commitments to the respective conflicts:

=> Korean War (0), Gulf War-1 (24), Kosovo (18), Afghanistan (0), Libya (6) --- total 48

during the period of time associated with the varying levels of conflict and Canada's 48 fighter jet commitments, Canada has purchased a total of 1100 jet fighters.

1100 purchased <=> 48 committed in conflict

Edited by waldo, 14 July 2012 - 04:38 PM.

[Derek L]

to clarify, your contention is that... not only is there not a secure and robust enough bandwidth, they haven't even figured out how to, as you say, "make a secure and robust enough bandwidth"? Is that your contention?

At present, yes. Coupled with the fact that due to the lack of situational awareness, all UAV/UCAV are limited to operating in restricted (and contested) airspace………..

[Derek L]

no - not at all


would you really like me to fire you up a lmgtfy link?

Is it another blog?

[Derek L]

my colours? How do you like the following colours?:

waldo factoid: in the so-called 'jet age', Canada has participated in 5 varying levels of conflict, with the following fighter jet commitments to the respective conflicts:

=> Korean War (0), Gulf War-1 (24), Kosovo (18), Afghanistan (0), Libya (6) --- total 48

during the period of time associated with the varying levels of conflict and Canada's 48 fighter jet commitments, Canada has purchased a total of 1100 jet fighters.

1100 purchased <=> 48 committed in conflict

Over said period you label the “jet age”, how many Canadian jet fighters were/are committed to NORAD and NATO based out of Germany, and others based in Quebec and committed to Norway in the event of war?