It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The F-35 Can Manuever After All!

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hard to comprehend I believe. It's as if he thinks the USA is the only country in the world that has influence when it comes to military hardware.




posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: TheChrome
Yes they can. But are they ?? Seems the F-35B's out of Arizona are grounded due to software issues.
More of that AI hacking perhaps I have been theorizing on??


Marine F-35s grounded due to software concerns
"Maj. Gen. Mark Wise, commanding general of 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, made the decision to temporarily suspend VMFA-211 flight operations pending fixes to a recent ALIS software upgrade within version 2.0.2 that has presented some anomalies," Maj. Kurt Stahl, director of public affairs with the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, wrote in a statement. "There is nothing wrong with the performance or safety of the aircraft itself, but it is imperative that we ensure the ground-based ALIS system is working properly before flight operations continue.


Well I hope they get them in the air ASAP!


I remember seeing the F-35's coming in for landings(I lived in Yuma, a couple years back) and marveling at just how damn expensive those things are.




posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Hopefully they can work out all the kinks in the computer systems. It seems the more high tech aircraft become, the more things can wrong.
edit on -05:002017Sun, 02 Jul 2017 12:11:28 -050031America/Chicago000000Sun, 02 Jul 2017 12:11:28 -0500SunAmerica/ChicagoJul by PorteurDeMort because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: PorteurDeMort

We've reached the point where any new system is going to be expensive as hell. The KC-46, a simple tanker, is $147M flyaway, and $241M if you add in the R&D costs.

The CH-53K, as it stands right now, is more expensive than the F-35A, and soon to be more expensive than the C. And that's for a helicopter.
edit on 7/2/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zap, to tell the absolute truth, I'm at the age and frame of mind to actually not give a S### any more. Lets go ahead and nuke both Russia and China and be done with this pussyfooting around with them any more. Lets just go ahead and get it done already. Lets let the missiles fly already. I'll push the first button if they will let me.




posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: CharlesT

Oh of course. If the US just stopped then everyone would miraculously get along and war would suddenly stop and peace would break out all over the world.


We will never know if peace will break out because the US won't let it. If we are not starting and fighting wars around the globe the military industrial machine would be out of a job. Our #1 export is military armament to other nations with a close 2nd export being death and destruction. I'm personally ashamed of what the US has instigated over the past 20 or so years. Did I say 20? Maybe I should have said the past 60+ years. We, the US, have become death and destruction.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlesT

It always amazes me that the US gets the blame for everything that happens anywhere in the world. China bullies their neighbors? The US caused it. The Philippines has problems with home grown terrorists? The US caused it.

So when does the blame stop falling on the US? Do you plan on blaming the US because of the honor killings in the ME? How about for the latest Chinese rocket that failed? Hell, why stop at wars? Let's blame the US for every single bad thing that happens on the planet.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlesT

No avoiding war is always the best solution.

No nukes getting lobbed. Its the primary strategy in almost every tacticians rule book since ancient times.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Even though hes canadian i still blame the usa for bringing about justin Bieber



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: CharlesT

It always amazes me that the US gets the blame for everything that happens anywhere in the world. China bullies their neighbors? The US caused it. The Philippines has problems with home grown terrorists? The US caused it.

So when does the blame stop falling on the US? Do you plan on blaming the US because of the honor killings in the ME? How about for the latest Chinese rocket that failed? Hell, why stop at wars? Let's blame the US for every single bad thing that happens on the planet.


So the US is blameless. I get it. UNCLE, UNCLE, UNCLE!!!



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlesT

Not at all. We've done a lot of bad things around the world. But you know what? So has, and does almost every other country in the world. There is no such thing as a blameless country on this planet right now. It's the cool thing to blame the US, which does deserve some blame, but we are not solely responsible for every problem on the planet.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Too much thread drift here so this will be my last post. This is just my own personal opinion, OK Zap? I was born in 1950 so I have been witness to most of the conflicts we have been involved since WWII and served in the AF during Viet Nam. Looking back, I can not see how our involvement in either Korea or Viet Nam were entered into legally. We stuck our noses in with the pretext of preventing the spread of communism but the truth is that the US was not attacked or in imitate danger of attack. During Viet Nam, Ladybird Johnson Donald Rumsfeld and others got filthy rich on that war. The Viet Nam war was criminal......

Panama was illegal. Grenada, Libya, more criminality on our part. Iraq 1 and Iraq 2 were illegal. Western Europe may have been justified in Iraq 1 but not the US... George Bush and his ilk should be charged with war crimes for Iraq 2. We have no business in Syria. That is nothing more than a proxy war for an oil pipeline we have no business in. That is also western Europe's business.

As I see it, we had no business in every conflict since WWII but unfortunately, money rules and oligarchs continue to get filthy rich on WAR...... I'm sick of WAR...



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well, yeah! Duh...

We're the ebil of duh world! The poor Chinese are picked upon, so too, the innocent Russians...

If we'd just stop everything would be sunshine and buttercups...I don't like daisies. OH, my ebil 'Murican just came out...I'm anti-daisy.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlesT

And Iraq had no legal right to go into Kuwait, China no legal right to claim all the territory they have and shoot at their neighbors, or claim Tibet, Russia no excuse to go into Georgia, Afghanistan, or the Ukraine, and on and on. As I said, the US is no saint, but neither is any other country out there.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: PorteurDeMort

Unfortunately, that's the case.

One little digit out of place and pow, problems that take millions of dollars to fix, well thousands, anyway...

That's our brave new world.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: CharlesT

And Iraq had no legal right to go into Kuwait, China no legal right to claim all the territory they have and shoot at their neighbors, or claim Tibet, Russia no excuse to go into Georgia, Afghanistan, or the Ukraine, and on and on. As I said, the US is no saint, but neither is any other country out there.


Please tell me how any of this can legally justify our intervention. Are we being attacked? No? Is our intervention constitutionally legal? NO? Politicians always say intervention in any confrontation is necessary to our national security. Well, according to the John McCains of this nation there is not one square inch of this planet that is not necessary to our national security. I do not believe in the opinion that we are or should be the global police force but, after all, WAR PAYS. The deep state doesn't care how many people they kill as long as the $millions keep rolling in.

ETA: An afterthought. The problem is just too many people for this old rock to accommodate. The planet needs population reduction and war does a pretty good job for starters.
edit on 2017-07-02T14:56:24-05:0002pmSun, 02 Jul 2017 14:56:24 -0500SundayAmerica/Chicago2431 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlesT

As far as China goes, we haven't intervened beyond our normal operations, but we have these things called treaties with several nations in the area that actually want our help. As for the Baltic region, those nations asked for NATO help and training.

Right now, thanks to the existing leadership they don't need a war to pay. They've run most of our equipment into the ground and it needs replacing.
edit on 7/2/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zap, we could go on and on with this but the truth is that we are individual with differing views of the state of global affairs. My view is no more right or wrong for another complete stranger than yours. Individuality is the greatest human atribute we are blessed with. Have a fine evening.

CharlesT
edit on 2017-07-02T15:16:27-05:0003pmSun, 02 Jul 2017 15:16:27 -0500SundayAmerica/Chicago2731 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Was it Eisenhower that warned us about entering into binding treaties with foreign nations?

I need to go!!



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Zaphod58
Was it Eisenhower that warned us about entering into binding treaties with foreign nations?

I need to go!!


We has binding agreements with OAS and that included Argentina. We also had NATO commitments with the U.K..

We picked one and it was the U.K.. So much for 'binding agreements'.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join