Everything old eventually becomes new again. Time Magazine [1] begins its description of the "no fly zone" the Obama administration will implement over Syria by recalling how the same concept was implemented over Iraq from 1991 to 2003. Wikipedia [2] notes "the Iraqi no-fly zones were a set of two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south." Though Time doesn't mention it, readers may recall another "no-fly-zone" declared over Libya [3], ostensibly to "protect civilians" and to implement an "arms embargo".
Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, "who oversaw the Iraqi no-fly zones as chief of U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000âł thinks the nomenclature in this instance is inaccurate. "It's not a no-fly zone--it's a bombing campaign," Zinni said. Patrick Cockburn of the Independent [4] actually believes its the Kurds who are about who's going to get bombed by the Turks for the most part. "Whatever America was hoping for, initial signs are that the Turkish government may be more interested in moving against the Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iraq than it is in attacking Isis. Ankara has previously said that it considers both the PKK and Isis to be 'terrorists'."
And indeed, not just the PKK but the YPG Turks complain they are now feeling the lash of Turkish might. The BBC [5] reports: "the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) say Turkish tanks shelled their fighters near Kobane in northern Syria".
...Just a coincidence. Happenstance or not, it's clear that Turkey effectively gets a piece of former Syrian territory, albeit under the control of proxies in the process of carving out its "safe zones". A team from the New York Times [7] describes what is known about the plan, which appears to extend Turkish control over Syrian territory being fought over by Assad and ISIS. Kurds always get shafted
#4
And yeah, the article quotes the lies from the idiot David Axe piece. It's bad enough that he lies, why do y'all feel so damn compelled to lie to me on his behalf?
Furthermore, it should be noted, there’s quite a few people pushing back against Axe’s sensationalistic piece. Far from being the true test that shows once and for all the F-35 is a POS, it was in fact, a first look, aimed at finding out not so much how well the F-35 performed against the F-16, but rather at what parts of the flight control software could be improved to give the F-35 more maneuverability, particularly at high Angles of Attack (AoA). It appears the F-35 used in the test, AF-2 the second build “A” model for the Air Force, was also using flight control software that restricted certain portions of the envelope. And my sources also tell me the test took place during a time when there were restrictions on the engine performance. While the pilot might have no restrictions on throttle movement, the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) was programmed in a manner that would restrict some of the output.
#8
TFSM, here's the deal: It doesn't matter whether it can go into orbit like a flying saucer, if we can't afford to build them, then we can't have them.
It's kind of like the plans for the fleet of B2's.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
07/28/2015 8:08 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Ed: then maybe you should look at the people who are committing disarmament-by-goldbricking by keeping the production rate low and keeping it in eternal prototype status.
Furthermore, the people committing disarmament-by-goldbricking have getting the project cancelled after spending the development money as one of their _objectives_.
#10
Well the problems that buggered the F-35 have been around since the 1970's. One of the big ones is distributed manufacturing and design. Instead of building a complete aircraft at a site, pieces of it get parceled out do different states to get politicians behind it. Then they add security clearance requirements out the wazoo for the guys that actually build the tooling and design the software. Strange things happen. On one project the tail was an inch off diameter from fitting the fuselage.
Posted by: Bob These1478 ||
07/28/2015 9:42 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Bob, then the answer would be to change the plan so it is built all in ft worth like the f16.
#14
There was a metric boatload of money spent on the A-12, was it all wasted.? I wonder if some was side-tracked. My understanding is that from all the money spent there are only the remains of a boiler-plate stashed away. At least we got 100+ F-35' mostly Bees going directly to customers that want them. Deploying to Japan 2016(?).
#15
About all from the A-12 that survived was the radar ( in current gen F-18s). flight control software now obsolete, manufacturing processes obsolete. Oh yeah the engines live on in the Hornet/Superhornet.
There was one canopy made that was later sold on Ebay to a private individual.
and lots of neat swag.
#17
The F-4C was a lead sled that was asked to do air to air and air to ground; while sitting nuclear alert and handling ship surveillance missions. It put out a exhaust trail that let the enemy find you by simply following the smoke and burned 1000 lbs. a minute in AB(with only a 12,000 lb. fuel load flying clean). Yet, I wish I could have flown in the E model. Most of us that flew it, loved it. The Israelis showed its true potential and that, despite being often outnumbered and, sometimes, outclassed by opposing equipment. Bottom line, it's still the guy (or gal) that straps on the plane that ultimately makes the difference. The F-35 looks like an expensive F-4 (note the same lack of rear visibility). Just get on with it. Can it or go into production, it's the time lag that makes for obsolescence. Maybe by the time there is an E model the enemy will be shuddering or at least the IAF will have installed an external rear view mirror.
Posted by: Total War ||
07/28/2015 19:54 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
