The irony is the Joint Strike Fighters were designed by committees to be a Next Generation stealth.fighter for all branches of the services Navy Marines Air Force ... All with very different missions so as with all engineering is a set of trade-offs... And now is one big compromise to do all things for all missions and sux at any one focused mission... What happens when bean counters appointed by a community organizer are in charge rather than experienced combat pilots who actually fly in modern warfare situations.

Quote:(((Homowitz)))

Vegeta, what does the scouter say about his faggottry level?

It's over 9000!

Washington Post had an article today about how much importance Trump puts on looks when he picks something for a position, not necessarily that the person has to be physically attractive but he or she does have to give off a certain look that suits the image that Trump wants the person to have for that position. Supposedly Bolton's mustache was a big factor in disqualifying him from getting the Secretary of State pick:

Quote:Several of Trump’s associates said they thought that John R. Bolton’s brush-like mustache was one of the factors that handicapped the bombastic former United Nations ambassador in the sweepstakes for secretary of state.

“Donald was not going to like that mustache,” said one associate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly. “I can’t think of anyone that’s really close to Donald that has a beard that he likes.”

A few weeks ago Scott Adams wrote a blog post about potential SoS picks from his Master Persuader filter, so in other words it was mostly about what sort of image a pick would give off and he actually mentioned Bolton's mustache being a negative point against him.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/15412342847...d-decision

Quote:Half of the United States is already living under an illusion that Hitler just got elected President of the United States. If you add a war-loving white guy with a strange mustache to the illusion, you’re just making things worse.

(12-23-2016 12:21 AM)LeoneVolpe Wrote:  

aeroektar Wrote:The art world is cancer.

Quote:“I’ve always felt that a lot of modern art is a con, and that the most successful painters are often better salesmen and promoters than they are artists.”
― Donald J. Trump, Trump: The Art of the Deal

Quote:22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

-Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

(12-23-2016 03:27 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 12:21 AM)LeoneVolpe Wrote:  

aeroektar Wrote:The art world is cancer.

Quote:“I’ve always felt that a lot of modern art is a con, and that the most successful painters are often better salesmen and promoters than they are artists.”
― Donald J. Trump, Trump: The Art of the Deal

Quote:22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

-Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

It's actually the opposite. The CIA was funding modern art during the Cold War as a counter to communism.

The lack of form symbolized the intellectual freedom and creativity provided by capitalism, as opposed to the rigidity and restrictiveness of media/art in the Soviet Union.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...78808.html

Quote:For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art - including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince - except that it acted secretly - the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.

The connection is improbable. This was a period, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art - President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot." As for the artists themselves, many were ex- communists barely acceptable in the America of the McCarthyite era, and certainly not the sort of people normally likely to receive US government backing.

Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete.

(12-23-2016 01:32 AM)Deepdiver Wrote:  The irony is the Joint Strike Fighters were designed by committees to be a Next Generation stealth.fighter for all branches of the services Navy Marines Air Force ... All with very different missions so as with all engineering is a set of trade-offs... And now is one big compromise to do all things for all missions and sux at any one focused mission... What happens when bean counters appointed by a community organizer are in charge rather than experienced combat pilots who actually fly in modern warfare situations.

Excellent point, though I think the F-35 boondoggle goes way back, to the 90's.

Law 23: Concentrate your forces.

Meanwhile, we already have the F-22, which is without peer in air superiority and will be for many years. So why are we spending so much money on this thing? They say it's because the F-22 is too expensive to manufacture (each one costs around $100 million), but the F-35 program has been vastly more expensive so even if they can get the individual unit manufacturing costs down, we've probably already sunk more money in this contraption than if we'd just bought more F-22s.

And for close air support, the ground fighters LOVE the A-10 and doesn't want it to go away. It'd probably just be better to go for the successor to the A-10 for CAS purposes only, if a successor is needed at all.

They should just take a fraction of that money and drop it from B52s until they've literally buried their enemies alive in a sea of green.

(12-23-2016 08:26 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 03:27 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 12:21 AM)LeoneVolpe Wrote:  

aeroektar Wrote:The art world is cancer.

Quote:“I’ve always felt that a lot of modern art is a con, and that the most successful painters are often better salesmen and promoters than they are artists.”
― Donald J. Trump, Trump: The Art of the Deal

Quote:22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

-Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

It's actually the opposite. The CIA was funding modern art during the Cold War as a counter to communism.

The lack of form symbolized the intellectual freedom and creativity provided by capitalism, as opposed to the rigidity and restrictiveness of media/art in the Soviet Union.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...78808.html

Quote:For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art - including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince - except that it acted secretly - the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.

The connection is improbable. This was a period, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art - President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot." As for the artists themselves, many were ex- communists barely acceptable in the America of the McCarthyite era, and certainly not the sort of people normally likely to receive US government backing.

Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete.

Looks like the CIA has been compromised for a long time.

1963 Congressional Record is a treasure trove. We must study it, and use it against them.


1963 Congressional Record: ‘Communist Goals’ Include Promoting of Homosexuality as ‘Natural, Healthy’

Quote:25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

Complete selectable list: The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

Art via state fiat ceases to be art. Whether it is the Soviets telling you to do realism or the CIA buying your abstractions.

People like to think that art via church or aristocratic fiat is just as neutering, but it is obviously not once you compare them all. One reason may be that the church or the aristocrats often choose well known and beloved stories for the artist to depict.

Those stories are understood by nearly the entire population. They function as genres. So the artist is still working within the confines of impressing an audience.

The state replaces the audience for art, like it replaces the father for the family. We all know where that leads.

^ The CIA funded art through proxy, not directly.

In hind site Obama executed relentlessly and continuously on nearly all 45 CTOA goals... Mostly at Soros and Bilderberg Globalists financial cajoling and coercion!

He was in fact a Saul Alinsky ruling radical Marxist Feminist Manchurian candidate POTUS ashamed of America.

We need to root out this insipid rot along with married homosexists who think their evil deviant diabolical diseased degeneracy is a moral authority if they scream loud and long enough at our new patriotic love America first CiC or his family...

Gingrich grovels: I beg Trump’s forgiveness for mistakenly claiming he no longer uses the term “drain the swamp”

.
.
.

(12-23-2016 08:38 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 01:32 AM)Deepdiver Wrote:  The irony is the Joint Strike Fighters were designed by committees to be a Next Generation stealth.fighter for all branches of the services Navy Marines Air Force ... All with very different missions so as with all engineering is a set of trade-offs... And now is one big compromise to do all things for all missions and sux at any one focused mission... What happens when bean counters appointed by a community organizer are in charge rather than experienced combat pilots who actually fly in modern warfare situations.

Excellent point, though I think the F-35 boondoggle goes way back, to the 90's.

Law 23: Concentrate your forces.

Meanwhile, we already have the F-22, which is without peer in air superiority and will be for many years. So why are we spending so much money on this thing? They say it's because the F-22 is too expensive to manufacture (each one costs around $100 million), but the F-35 program has been vastly more expensive so even if they can get the individual unit manufacturing costs down, we've probably already sunk more money in this contraption than if we'd just bought more F-22s.

And for close air support, the ground fighters LOVE the A-10 and doesn't want it to go away. It'd probably just be better to go for the successor to the A-10 for CAS purposes only, if a successor is needed at all.

That's what I've been thinking for a long time now. Restart F-22 production for air superiority, A-10's for ground attack, more F/A-18 Super Hornets for carriers. Someone once said that designing the three variants of the F-35 was almost like designing three separate planes, so why not use three separate planes that actually work for a decent price? You could even create a new, upgraded Super Hornet if you wanted, and all of this put together would still be better and cheaper than the F-35 program.

This is the problem with U.S. military spending - we get "the best", at least in theory, but break the bank doing it. Russia's military seems more likely to get things that aren't as flashy, but they work, and they spend less money.

Goddammit Newt I fucking like you when you're based, but jesus christ don't say shit that isn't true.

As for the jets:

Seriously the F-35 is rad, but spending is out of control for that puppy.

F-22 is a good foundation to build upon.

As for the A-10 - the last upgrades were in 05' as the A-10C they need a new version of that bad boy that thing does wonders for boots on the ground as Libertas pointed out.

Brilliant Team Trump Alpha dog corrective China Whisperer Dog Chain jerk has arrogant Chinese flipping from making threats to begging for negotiations now that they realize their 50 year USA economic unfair trade and currency RAPETHON is over!

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016...na-reacts/

We are winning using the Chinese own ancient wisdom against them... "Keep your plans as dark as night and when you make your moves... MOVE LIKE LIGHTNING before the enemy knows what has happened and is so stunned the are unable to react...

This is what happens when an Alpha Prime Patriot America First CiC surrounds himself with Alpha Prime West Point and Annapolis men... All of flag officer ranks... The manginas, radical hate America feminists, trannielgbt media and freaking Communist Red Chinese all panic in scramble mode with a collective "WTF DO WE DO NOW?"

It is called seizing the narrative and the big mo momentum meme... The prerequisite attitude for WINNING... Damn we are accelerating our winning so much I am walking around with perpetual wood ready to launch my very own #TrumpBabyBoom !!!

The F-35 and F-22 have fundamentally different missions as I understand it. They're designed to work together; the F-35 isn't supposed to replace the F-22, and can't. The F-22 is an air superiority fighter and the F-35 is a multirole strike fighter, which basically means the F-22 is primarily designed to fight other fighters while the F-35 is meant primarily to attack ground targets, but can theoretically fight air targets if necessary.

The incentivized cost overruns and design by committee bullshit is par for the course these days, but what's really insane is that the services think they can replace the F-16, A-10, F/A-18, and Harrier all with a single airframe in three variants. An airframe that costs on average $178 million each ($85 million is fantasy at this point). Even if you could do the job of all four planes with the F-35--you can't, not by a long shot, it's completely impossible to fulfill all of those roles well in a single plane--you'd end up with 10-14% as many planes to do the same amount of work for the price.

Does that make sense to anyone? 10-14% as many planes (or a 7-10x more expensive air fleet), which are not as good at most of their jobs as the planes they replaced, all for... what? Moderately simplified logistics? Stealth that will spend most of its time compromised because the plane will have bombs strapped all over the wings instead of in the internal bays? What a great trade.

It's hard to say how the F-35 really stacks up against each of the planes it's supposed to replace, because I frankly don't believe the given performance specifications are real, and there are always little gremlins in the system that won't show up until the plane has been in service for awhile. I read yesterday, though, that due to the headrest design visibility in a dogfight is significantly reduced compared with an F-16. How many more little problems like that are we going to find?

delete

http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-el...-15416739/

Quote:Dear Mr. Trump,

Please accept my warmest Christmas and New Year greetings.

Serious global and regional challenges, which our countries have to face in recent years, show that the relations between Russia and the U.S. remain an important factor in ensuring stability and security of the modern world.

I hope that after you assume the position of the President of the United States of America we will be able – by acting in a constructive and pragmatic manner - to take real steps to restore the framework of bilateral cooperation in different areas as well as bring our level of collaboration on the international scene to a qualitatively new level.

Please accept my sincere wishes to you and your family of sound health, happiness, wellbeing, success and all the best.

Sincerely,

V.Putin

I'm not even sure the F-35 can be killed at this point. There's so many sunk costs into it that it's become a white elephant and so many people are tied into it, but Trump's done the impossible far more than once. So let's see what happens. It's also possible to negotiate prices down.

But you do have to wonder what they were thinking trying to jerry-rig one plane for three different roles. Unless it was just a total giveaway to the MIC from the beginning which is possible.

The art thing is just one more reason to stop with the Ivanka worship. There is nothing about this women aside from the identity of her father that should make us fans. Her politics are odious. Her choice of husband is suspect. Her taste in "art" speaks of basic bitch cultural degeneracy.

Yes, she looks good for a 35 year old mother of three. But she's still a 35 year old mother of 3, so that's sorta damning with faint praise in my opinion.

I do not want Ivanka Trump to have a large voice in the Trump administration, let alone to have a successful political career in her own right. She has much more in common with a Chelsea Clinton than she does with us.

Don Jr. on the other hand would have my vote any day. That dude is like a Trump 5.0

The problem with war spending is that you have to choose whether you're doing occupations or preparing for inter-superpower warfare.

A10. Everyone loves it because it makes a lot of sense in places like Iraq and Afghanistan where you have FOBs and you want a long linger time against a foe with zero air capability.

Against Russia? Not so much.

So military spending has to go necessarily in two directions at once. Grinding occupation and breakneck apocalypse.

This is what causes engineers to go bald by the time they're 30.

The A-10 does make sense against Russia though. It's part of the American warfighting system, and it does a job literally nothing else we have can do. The A-10 was designed to fight the commies in WWIII, not to kill assclown insurgents in the middle east.

The arguments against using the A-10 usually require assuming the A-10 is not part of the general air war system we've built. Nobody's going to send A-10s in to fight SAM batteries or Su-35s unsupported. The A-10s will go in after the F-whatevers have taken over the airspace. If we can't take the airspace, we're not going to need the A-10s to support ground forces in the first place, because the ground forces won't be there.

Consider as an analogy the M1 Abrams, or any main battle tank really. Tanks are really only good for fighting other tanks, when you get right down to it. Oh, tanks might kill crappy AFVs and in the right circumstances they might pot a helicopter or take out a few infantry, but they're not hard for properly equipped infantry or high tech AFVs like M3 Bradleys to kill. Infantry are very difficult to engage in a tank, and a Bradley can drop a TOW missile on your head before you even see it if it's in cover. Or, a Bradley can drop a TOW on you a klick outside the effective range of your gun even if you do see it.

Should we get rid of tanks? Of course not. Because they're a critical part of the system. While tanks unsupported are pretty vulnerable to, well, everything but other tanks, if you use tanks in a combined arms push with mech infantry and indirect fire, they're an amazing force multiplier. It would suck to go against a combined arms force that had tanks without your own tanks, even if it is technically feasible.

It's not a perfect analogy but I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. The A-10 offers a unique capability that is not even halfway replicated by anything else in our air fleet, unless you count the scarcer-than-hen's-teeth, worth-their-weight-in-gold AC-130 gunships (latest variant = $253 million each). A-10s are relatively inexpensive planes ($19 million) with amazing survivability, and as far as I know lots of them just got wing upgrades to extend their life until 2030+ under the ongoing Boeing wing upgrade program. Why on earth would we give them up?

The only reason the AF wants to give up A-10s is because they're not sexy fighter jets, and the fighter fags run the show over there. They don't care if the only CAS they can offer is a few seconds of inaccurate, pathetic 20mm fire--which will not kill a modern tank by the way, even from the top--or a bomb that can't even be dropped on the enemy without risking serious friendly casualties (because the dangerous blast radius is 250m) before having to return to base to refuel and rearm. And that's if a plane is even available in a timely manner. When I was in Mosul, we called in jets a few times and it took 45 minutes for them to show up. Good thing we didn't need them in a hurry (we really didn't), but it's not like ground troops are real people anyway, amirite?

Remember, the Air Force brass are the geniuses who think in the future we won't even need ground troops. They think we can win wars from start to finish with jets using missiles and bombs. Don't even need guns on the planes! That tells me all I need to know about their understanding of war.

-----

Regarding the F-35 program, I have no idea what will happen with it. I seriously doubt it will just be cancelled, but maybe it can morph into something more useful. I'm sure we learned something useful during the R&D process. I haven't been able to figure out where, precisely, all the bits and pieces of the F-35 are being made but if it's the usual crap where they try to build at least part of the plane in every single state to appease Congress we might be able to cut costs significantly just by consolidating production and actually holding Lockheed Martin accountable for their repeated failures to deliver what they've promised.

It's amazing, but they're building planes now that are basically broken. They can't be used for combat, and will require expensive modifications later once LM finally figures out how to fix all the software and systems problems they have. So we have like 175 expensive-as-fuck planes that are useless except as trainers, and they want to build even more without figuring out the problems first.

Trump in peak shitlording mode