Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

[blindpilot]

Pity that you weren't taught any common sense - if you have to be taught about a sense of humor .... well the jokes on you!!

Since I was the one who couldn't resist the [sarc on] comment, I insist that I be equally chastised and accused of not being [sarc On] "Nice." (was there ever a better example of the Canadian problem?)

I knew I needed to put this on the Canadudes thread. Sorry folks. Didn't mean to rain on the Parade de Oz.

Note to Chippy. Hey us Yanks'll take full brunt of our political follies ! But you elect a clueless boy wonder, you gotta admit it is kinda funny. To all but the Canadian friends I worked with at NORAD at all ... I ache for them...

But but but ! We hear nothing from them because they were ordered to STFU! (btw they were treated really "nice"? really?)

So some one has to speak for your sons and daughters whose lives, the wine drinkers care nothing for. Someone who can't have their pension threatened. So it'll have the Yanks I guess. Chippy I'll meet you over at the endless Canadudes thread.

Meanwhile Yay Oz!

MHO,
BP

[ChippyHo]

BP,
Respect for the thoughtful and ( )polite answer.
Look I happen to agree - our PM is a useless juvenile and NO i didn't vote for him or his party. Be that as it may - i color most politicians the same color - useless.
That does not give people a carte blanche to poop on the country. I have always felt that we Canucks could learn to be more like our Yankee cousins and be much more visibly patriotic.Ya we need to wave the flag more than at just hockey and curling tournaments!!!
My problem with Spaz' posts is that he attacks Canada - when really he should fire his load at the dumbass politicians

Rant done - back to regularly scheduled STUFF

[kimjongnumbaun]

Photo from the event.

[spazsinbad]

'ChippyHo' said: "...My problem with Spaz' posts is that he attacks Canada...". I would have thought that the GENERAL TERM 'CANADA' is polite terminology for the well understood underlying meaning 'the government of Canada and underlings'. It seems 'to you' that is not clear. Vaguely I recall clearing up that on the very long Canadian thread but - of course - I could be mistaken. However over on 'that' thread I've made clear my misgivings about the DECEITFUL gubmint.

[element1loop]

Loved that video Spaz, cheers.

[ChippyHo]

I've made clear my misgivings about the DECEITFUL gubmint.

If that is the case fine - we agree. At times however it feels as if the commentary is directed at ALL Canucks
I took offense with that - perhaps incorrectly

[spazsinbad]

No worries. I'll be more clear about 'which/WHAT Canadians' from now on. There is a famous story from long ago in the RAN FAA prop NavAv era....

...“I recall the Australian naval aviator who, in the final stages of a batsman controlled approach in a Sea Fury, received a red Verey cartridge signal from the flying control position in the carrier’s island structure and for no apparent reason. This is a mandatory go-around instruction over-ruling the batsman. After aborting the approach, and a subsequent quiet circuit and landing, the pilot was still obviously suffering from the stress of the go-around for, as soon as he got out of the aircraft, he stormed up to the flying control position in the island which, as well as its normal complement of brass, also housed some very senior officers visiting the ship. Our friend’s first, and only, words were “What stupid bastard fired that red?”. Later that evening, after suffering the consequent chastisement, Commander (Air) approached and bought him a large gin, noting “Of course it would have been a lot worse for you if you’d said “which stupid bastard”!”.... http://www.auf.asn.au/magazine/seafires2.html

[ricnunes]

'ricnunes' you will see the route a few pages back on this thread: you will see this quote on previous page this thread:

"...The two F-35’s are wearing No.3 Squadron emblems on their vertical stabilisers and are aircraft 09 and 10 (Serials: A35-009 and A35-010 respectively). The aircraft departed Luke AFB on Monday the 3rd of December at 12:30pm (U.S. time) and stopped over at Hickham AFB in Hawaii Tuesday night (AEST time) and completed their journey across the Pacific from Hickham to Amberley in nine hours under the callsign Aussie 1023...."

Thanks spaz

However a direct flight from Hickham to Amberley seems to be a very long stretch (even with air refueling) without any stops in-between. Are you sure that this "last leg" was done directly without any stops?

[ricnunes]

or electing competent representatives or leaders to do the same...

Yes because our Yankee cousins are a shining example of electing a leader who doesn't lie, sleep with pornstars or has a modicum of respect for the rest of the planet .....

Being Canadian myself, sometimes I also think that some here seem to sometimes be a bit on the hash side regarding Canadians.
On the other hand, sometimes (or many times) we deserve it when it comes to defense procurement issues.
A small example that I may give you right now is that for example Portugal (my other country) or more precisely the Portuguese Air Force had air launched air-to-ground precision guided munitions - in this case the Maverick missile - more than 10 years earlier (procured in the early 1980's) compared to Canada (which got the same weapons only in the late 1990's). This and many other examples clearly shows that there's something VERY, VERY MESSY in terms of defense procurement in Canada and this independently on who seats in the Canadian Federal Government (of course this doesn't excuse Canada's current Prime Minister from being an complete idiot).
On the other hand as well, idiotic politicians on governments exist on pretty much every country in the world which again is IMO a sort of evidence that something is, very, very wrong when it comes to Canadian Defense procurement programs.

Finally, I would appreciate if someone explained me what's wrong with sleeping with (Female) pornstars??
(I hope this isn't derailing this thread too much...)

[steve2267]

Somewhere I seem to recall a route from Hawaii to Land-o-Oz via Guam. I don’t think they stopped in Guam, but perhaps they flew within divert distance?

[ricnunes]

Somewhere I seem to recall a route from Hawaii to Land-o-Oz via Guam. I don’t think they stopped in Guam, but perhaps they flew within divert distance?

Are you sure?
I'm asking this because IMO it doesn't make much sense since the distance from Hawaii to Guam is nearly 6,500 km while from Hawaii to Amberley seems to be a little bit more than 7,500 km. Not much of a gain in terms of shortening an individual leg while at the same time the trip from Guam to Amberley seems to be more than 4,700 km. A much longer overall route with more individual legs that individually are not much shorter compared to a direct Hawaii to Amberley flight.

[spazsinbad]

'ricnunes' you will see the route a few pages back on this thread: you will see this quote on previous page this thread:

"...The two F-35’s are wearing No.3 Squadron emblems on their vertical stabilisers and are aircraft 09 and 10 (Serials: A35-009 and A35-010 respectively). The aircraft departed Luke AFB on Monday the 3rd of December at 12:30pm (U.S. time) and stopped over at Hickham AFB in Hawaii Tuesday night (AEST time) and completed their journey across the Pacific from Hickham to Amberley in nine hours under the callsign Aussie 1023...."

Thanks spaz However a direct flight from Hickham to Amberley seems to be a very long stretch (even with air refueling) without any stops in-between. Are you sure that this "last leg" was done directly without any stops?

How can I be sure of anything - sitting in my sainted mother's deep basement - typing away at all hours, bleary eyes reading codswallop on the interbabble. At least two credible reporters have said the flight was from HICKAM to AMBERLEY and one stated it took nine hours. IF you find that INcredible then chalk it up to Oz ingenuity and GETHOMEITIS!

[ricnunes]

How can I be sure of anything - sitting in my sainted mother's deep basement - typing away at all hours, bleary eyes reading codswallop on the interbabble. At least two credible reporters have said the flight was from HICKAM to AMBERLEY and one stated it took nine hours. IF you find that INcredible then chalk it up to Oz ingenuity and GETHOMEITIS!

No, no. I'm not doubting you.
I was just "double checking" if you will

Again, thanks for the info spaz

[spazsinbad]

IF USAF have stated that 'more or less' they 'almost' continuously refuel aircraft over long water distances then one would believe this report that more than one Oz refueller accompanied the two RAAF F-35As from HICKAM to AMBERLEY direct.

F-35s touch down
10 Dec 2018 Stephen Kuper

"...The route saw A35-009 and A35-010 depart Luke Air Force Base in Arizona early last week, crossing the Pacific with a layover in Hawaii. On the homeward stretch to RAAF Base Amberley in southern Queensland from Hawaii, the F-35s were supported by in-air refuelling by Royal Australian Air Force KC-30A Tankers....

Source: https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... touch-down

F-35s arrive in RAAF Base WIlliamtown, NSW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt_PNhrUJ04

[blindpilot]

..a direct flight from Hickham to Amberley seems to be a very long stretch (even with air refueling) without any stops in-between. Are you sure that this "last leg" was done directly without any stops?

... At least two credible reporters have said the flight was from HICKAM to AMBERLEY and one stated it took nine hours. IF you find that INcredible then chalk it up to Oz ingenuity and GETHOMEITIS!

There are at least a few 6,000 ft plus alternates along this route (Kiribati et al) so as long as you have the air refueling, which Oz does, the direct 9 hr route is definitely plausible, even likely. No reason at all to doubt it.

MHO,
BP