Monday, July 13, 2015

Snatching Defeat From The Jaws of Victory

First good military move Australia has made in thirty years, cancels entire plan

... because it is hard. Wait, Australians are simultaneously the most confident people on Earth and at the same time incapable of organizing the upgrade of its military from its 1975 technology base? That explains why they have the highest rate of suicide for adult males. Narcissists facing their real limitations decide to take the easy way out. Low testosterone is associated with narcissism and suicide, so you draw the conclusions.

Bad news, Australia. Running a nation and providing for its defence is hard. Life is hard. Everything is hard. Especially if you never even try. There's more to life than just arching one eyebrow like Tom Cruise in TOP GUN. A lot more. Tom doesn't always win at naked wrestling. That doesn't stop him from trying hard.


gunner451 said...

You've got it wrong, the F-35 is an over priced joke that even a 30 year old fighter can beat in a dog fight. The US is projecting that this plane will ultimately cost the tax payers $1.5 Trillion (with a T!). No way any one can afford these dogs.

Texas Arcane said...


I agree wholeheartedly except I don't think this is merely a decision not to upgrade to this particular fighter jet. I think Abbott has lost the inertia and support to upgrade, period. Meaning Australia will keep it's 1970's military indefinitely.

Ave said...

There was an article on a french strategy blog that shed an interesting light : the F-35 / JSF program had the effect of destroying western competitors. It locks the "partner" countries in unescapable contracts without actually delivering anything. (side note : The Eurofighter is a bad joke and the Rafale is being cockblocked permanently since it exists.)

Mismanagement of gigantic scale may exist, but in this case I believe something else is at work. The objective is not the F-35 as such, but the development of a way to integrate new programs into weapon platforms.

The future weapon platforms will have to evolve permanently and be upgraded almost immediately. I believe this is the actual thing being developped undeer the guise of the F-35.

of course, some other things may happen in parallel : a competent workforce is maintained, other programs are being spun off from this (all these new drones for instance, not even mentionning the secret stuff), tools are being tested and accumulated etc.

But : the only thing that is relevant in this program is that nobody said no.

Perhaps they didn't want to, perhaps they couldn't. This looks a lot like a huge, inescapable scam, and test such as the dogfight against the F-16 are just adding insult to injury.

Grogard said...

No jobs home or reasonable chance to marry a normal girl is why western men suicide. Lithuania has the highest rates, and one of the highest IQ, lowest crime populations as well. It's not the fault of the people it's the fault of people destroying western civilization and using it like a condom and discarding the wretched remnants.

Ron said...

No, it may have been a good move. From what I've read, the f-35 is not a good fighter to purchase. Apparently they had two tracks. One was to create a fighter that the Air Force wanted, the f-22. And the other was to create a fighter that would fulfill every request from all the other branches of the military combined, the f-35. Which means that fighter is an unholy mess that cannot win a test dogfight agains an f16, and simulations show they'd routinely get shot out of the sky.

It could be the Australians realized this, but wanted to save face for the Americans so they came up with an excuse.

Or it could be exactly what you say, the f-35 is actually a great platform, the criticism is not completely valid, and the Australians screwed up.

I'll admot, I am no expert.

Texas Arcane said...


My beef with it is not that they decided that military hardware is not worth buying, it is that I see this as pursuant to giving up entirely and not doing anything for another 20 years. That's what bugs me. Australia always has this excuse for not doing anything. It's called productivity. You can't get any unless you try to do something. Better to try and fail than do like Oz and just never try at anything.

I didn't vote for Tony Abbott so he could cancel all military funding and give up altogether. If Abbott can't do it, rotate him out and let's try another candidate more conservative. By conservative I don't mean quitter.

Ryan David G said...

Do you think Tom Cruise has any Neanderthal blood, Tex? I'm not sure what to make of him.

Texas Arcane said...


Unfortunately, yes.

Poor guy is all messed up. I don't know where he went wrong in life but it goes to show you too much success in life will invariably make you into a d*ckhead sooner or later.

I do think Scientology deliberately hunts down wealthy high profile closeted men in Hollywood and exploits their secret once they can document it with their "audits."

StandardtPage said...

Australia will buy Super Hornets. Just put it in the search engine.

Ave made me thinking. They might have second rate engineers, but total baboons cannot run a development program like this for decades. Although its performance they got it flying, so it's not all PR and BS. You can not do that by just throwing parts together in random.

The whole idea of manned planes for next decades is bit odd in my mind. They already have stealth UAVs flying. What is the need for F-35s in 20+ years, other than getting photos of pilots?

I'm thinking Star Wars Redux. Let's keep open possibility that this project is umbrella for the development of several technologies, which will be quickly adapted to unmanned tech - like Ave said. Second objective could be to entice other countries to spend money on their projects and actually rely on manned planes, thinking USA has no matching technology.

US Army and various departments have technology forecasts and roadmaps. One forecast is advancement in explosives. They are waiting some 50% increase in power in coming years, and some 3-5x more power in 10+ years. Thus atleast the argument for small internal bomb bays would be moot, and even so in case of UAVs. Think about largish soda can having the same effect as standard iron bomb.

If the engineers can make it fly, then they are capable of judging from the basic data how well it will compare to other planes in dogfight etc. So it was never meant to fly in real fight, but just to develope technology?

Ave said...

Thanks StandardtPage, I posted this erlier on another forum and one answer was : "Your post is kind of hard to understand, but I'll take a stab at it."

Since english is not my native language, I am often asking myself if episodes like these are due to my expression or the complexity of the ideas as such.

> So it was never meant to fly in real fight, but just to develope technology?

I would say that's the case, but in a very peculiar way : the costs are mind-boggling, the pressure on partners enormous, the budgetary aspects ridiculous.

Just like the Third Financial Bubble which is currently deflating, it is as if they didn't really care for believability this time. Everybody knows the arguments against Greece are bogus, but it doesn't matter.

I read somewhere that you can't have power without abuse of power. If you can do whatever you want, and the others can't stop you, then you really have power. If you stop at a certain rule, then the authority that established that rule has power over you, and that limit will be used by your enemies.

This time the USA can allow itself what the hell it wants, be it about jet fighters or money, as is any of it didn't really matter.

Perhaps it's all just bluff, and a desperate bluff at that, or they have something else cooking.

I believe that they understood somewhere in the Sixties that there would be a time when human workers would not be required, and this is a complete game changer. Perhaps jet fighters and real money is something of the past, from the 20th century, and "human zoo" rations is the future, along with microdrones.

The jet pilot can't fly if he has been assassinated by a microdrone ( )

Sam said...

I think the F-35 probably has great sensors, electronics packages, radar, etc. but the big fan for short take off and landing just ruins it unless you just want a vertical take and landing plane. It kills the aerodynamics and takes up an enormousness amount of room. If you judge it just as a vertical take off and landing plane it's quite good.

They ought to redo the whole thing. Give 4 or 5 defense companies 2 billion a piece and set a price say 50 million a copy and what ever they can come up with buy the best. Give them 2 years to make it. They actually could have the vertical take off and landing as an add-on. Put a wrap around wing that bolts on top. The wing would include extra fuel and engines just for taking off. That way you could have both. It wouldn't be as elegant as being built in but it also would not cripple the regular versions.

I do believe that people are judging the F-35 as an all around fighter when clearly it's a special purpose plane like the Harrier.