Solomon makes a bigger fool of himself

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 20 Jun 2017, 04:08

Humour on the interrabble is difficult with language/custom differences (even English as she is spoken) GOG HELP ME! So this is where the <sarc> tags help or even SMILEY FACES to signify the joke. TROLLS care not for jokes becuz they are one.

white_lightning35 · by **white_lightning35** » 20 Jun 2017, 04:15

Okay, how bout this. We should launch an invasion... With EMUS! The aussies will capitulate like last time and we shall have our revenge!

<sarc>

(Maybe)

tincansailor · by **tincansailor** » 20 Jun 2017, 22:59

white_lightning35 wrote:It was sarcasm. It's kind of sad that you didn't realize that.

Wow. I guess my comment went over your head. Did you really think I thought he wanted Trump to invade Australia? Or that I thought he would find me, and arrest me, or invade my state? It's amazing how obtuse people can be when they disagree with someone. I guess you think humor only works when you attempt it.

juretrn · by **juretrn** » 28 Jul 2017, 15:01

Since this seems to be our basement dweller thread;
Another idiotic blog with even more idiotic assessments:
http://theboresight.blogspot.si/2017/07 ... u-35s.html

The American made AIM-9X missile - according to US-Western experts "the most advanced IR dogfight missile in the world" fails to hit a 1960 era Su-22 at point-blank range from a perfect 6 o'clock firing position. A truly shocking performance?

http://theboresight.blogspot.si/2015/08 ... t-f-x.html

Looking at the front of the F-35 is revealing - in that pilot rear visibility is poor. This is a distinct disadvantage in combat (although the Distributed Aperture System, called "DAS" claims to mitigate this issue to some degree, - we remain skeptical[of course you do; DAS isn't fitted to a Russian plane ]). Please note the two (2) heated 'pitot tubes' extend out, on either side of the aircraft chin. How these protuberances modulate F-35 RCS in unknown. Because the 'pitot tubes' must be electrically heated to work, they can appear as two (2) hot-spots to an adversary's FLIR/IRST.

Everything we writes reads like a mix between Sprey's "reformist" bullcrap and a Russia Stronk-ist.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 30 Jul 2017, 04:20

Is the TITLE OF THIS THREAD possible? I give in - go here to find out:

http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2017/07/la ... qus_thread

lbk000 · by **lbk000** » 30 Jul 2017, 04:31

i am pasting the post here because **** anti-adblockers:

Saturday, July 29, 2017
Latest F-35 sales announcement sounds fishy!

via AOL Breaking Defense.

After the markets closed on a sleepy and rainy summer Friday afternoon, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus was ousted and DHS Secretary John Kelly named to take his place, and, oh, by the way, a $3.69 billion contract was awarded Lockheed Martin for 50 foreign F-35s and work on the Lot 11 LRIP.

What’s in play here?

Most of the money, $2.2 billion, goes to buy one British F-35B, one Italian F-35A, eight Australian F-35As, eight Dutch F-35As, four Turkish F-35As, six Norwegian F-35As aircraft, and 22 F-35As for Foreign Military Sales customers.

Separately, Lockheed won an interim payment of $5.6 billion in early July to help pay for the 91 American F-35s jets in LRIP 11.

The F-35 Joint Program Office said the Pentagon would continue to negotiate the 11th low rate initial production contract with Lockheed Martin and expected an agreement by the end of 2017. The full contract should be finished by the end of the year, the JPO said in a statement. At the same time, they said they are negotiating a separate deal with Pratt & Whitney for the F135 engines, which should be done about the same time.

Is it just me or does that sound suspicious as hell? The F-35 program office HAS NEVER listed a purchase of the F-35 under "foreign military sales customers"!

Is the Pentagon and the Program Office playing games?

Are they actually buying F-35's now in the hopes that they can sell them later?

Are they so desperate to "push down the cost curve" that they would once again flaunt US law and play lawyer to skirt the OBVIOUS intent of Congress to control military waste?

Looks that way to me.

Posted by Solomon at 7/29/2017 02:19:00 AM

please continue to block ads on undeserving sites

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 30 Jul 2017, 05:28

ADblockers are doing you a favour are they not? OR do I have that RONG? :mrgreen:

Anyhoo - do not block ads?

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 30 Jul 2017, 14:05

lbk000 wrote:i am pasting the post here because **** anti-adblockers:
Saturday, July 29, 2017
Latest F-35 sales announcement sounds fishy!

via AOL Breaking Defense.

After the markets closed on a sleepy and rainy summer Friday afternoon, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus was ousted and DHS Secretary John Kelly named to take his place, and, oh, by the way, a $3.69 billion contract was awarded Lockheed Martin for 50 foreign F-35s and work on the Lot 11 LRIP.

What’s in play here?

Most of the money, $2.2 billion, goes to buy one British F-35B, one Italian F-35A, eight Australian F-35As, eight Dutch F-35As, four Turkish F-35As, six Norwegian F-35As aircraft, and 22 F-35As for Foreign Military Sales customers.

Separately, Lockheed won an interim payment of $5.6 billion in early July to help pay for the 91 American F-35s jets in LRIP 11.

The F-35 Joint Program Office said the Pentagon would continue to negotiate the 11th low rate initial production contract with Lockheed Martin and expected an agreement by the end of 2017. The full contract should be finished by the end of the year, the JPO said in a statement. At the same time, they said they are negotiating a separate deal with Pratt & Whitney for the F135 engines, which should be done about the same time.

Is it just me or does that sound suspicious as hell? The F-35 program office HAS NEVER listed a purchase of the F-35 under "foreign military sales customers"!

Is the Pentagon and the Program Office playing games?

Are they actually buying F-35's now in the hopes that they can sell them later?

Are they so desperate to "push down the cost curve" that they would once again flaunt US law and play lawyer to skirt the OBVIOUS intent of Congress to control military waste?

Looks that way to me.

Posted by Solomon at 7/29/2017 02:19:00 AM