Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
Threads and posts subject to the discretion of the moderators in this category.

Moderators: Flare, Orangeaid

TOPIC: Is US Military Technology Rubbish?

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 04 Nov 2015 22:12 #1

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 11659
  • Likes received: 8021
'Super Strypi' rocket disintegrates 1 minute after launch

Published time: 4 Nov, 2015 09:49Edited time: 4 Nov, 2015 09:49



The US Air Force has confirmed that its 'Super Strypi' sounding, or research, rocket has broken up on launch as its booster gained excessive rotation, destroying the vehicle a minute after lift-off.

“The ORS-4 mission on an experimental Super Strypi launch vehicle failed in mid-flight shortly after liftoff at 5:45 p.m.,” the US Air Force said in a statement.

The launch was carried out from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on the Hawaiian island of Kauai late Tuesday, November 3.

The launch of a modified, three-stage Strypi rocket has been postponed several times over the last two years, since October 2013, due to technical problems.



According to Spaceflightnow.com, the nearly 17-meter-long rocket with a diameter of 79 centimeters was launched as part of an experimental test flight of a new military lightweight satellite booster, supposed to deliver to lower orbit a HiakaSat satellite and 12 or more nano satellites.

The Super Strypi, also known as the Spaceborne Payloads Assist Rocket Kauai (SPARK), is supposed to operate as a launch platform for the Low Earth Orbiting Nanosatellite Integrated Defense Autonomous System (LEONIDAS) program, called to provide the US Department of Defense with a low-cost system to deliver small payloads into orbit.

The mission of the modified Strypi booster was sponsored by the Air Force's Operationally Responsive Space Office, in cooperation with Aerojet Rocketdyne, Sandia National Laboratories, the Pacific Missile Range Facility and the University of Hawaii.

Originally two-stage, the Strypi rocket was first tested in the early 1960s and retired in 1998, when the last official launch was performed on April 17. Altogether, there have been five unsuccessful launches over 50 years, with the previous failure taking place in 1995.



The Strypi family rockets have being used as targets for testing anti-missile systems and also as research rockets.
www.rt.com/usa/320716-super-strypi-rocket-hawaii/
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 04 Nov 2015 22:40 #2

  • entrangermercenary1
  • entrangermercenary1's Avatar
  • Offline
  • COD Expert
  • Posts: 5424
  • Likes received: 888
Thats why the below want to steal the "rubbish technology" :facepalm:

How China Steals U.S. Military Secrets
A spate of recent spying cases opens the lid on China's aggressive military buildup. What's most troubling: It is based largely on U.S. technology.

www.popularmechanics.com/military/a746/3319656/


Military secrets theft hacking trail leads to Russia...
FireEye has released a detailed report suggesting that state-sponsored attacks originating from Russia have focused on lifting military, government and security information.
www.zdnet.com/article/military-secrets-theft-hacking-trail-leads-to-russia/
Last Edit: 04 Nov 2015 23:07 by Orangeaid. Reason: Post edited to remove abuse from blatant troll
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 04 Nov 2015 23:12 #3

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 11659
  • Likes received: 8021
Military IP plundering. ... yes... the US are masters of that. Can't forget the greatest IP plunder of all time at the end of WWII.
The Great Patents Heist

Article from the The Barnes Review, March/April 1999, pp. 27-33.
The Barnes Review, 645 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Suite 100, Washington D.C. 20003, USA.
By John Nugent, freelance writer and NYC estate planner.
Published here with kind permission from TBR.
This digitized version © 2002 by The Scriptorium.

German aircraft designer and manufacturer Claudius Dornier's Super Whale (shown below a 1920s Zeppelin). First built in 1926, it proved an important milestone in the development of flying boats, and it pioneered regular flight between Europe and South America. Germany's motor, jet and rocket aerial creativity from early in the century until 1945 was considered remarkable. Few realize that at the end of World War I, after some 1,000 days of combat, Germany's 35 aircraft manufacturers and 20 aero-engine plants had 18,500 planes in inventory. The Versailles Treaty forced severe curtailment of German aviation. The nations of the Inter-Allied Control commission took their pick of advanced German planes and technology, while destroying all remaining military aircraft.

One of the greatest ripoffs of all time was the theft of German patents after World War II.

It is quite acceptable to American pride to acknowledge that immigrants have contributed to our prosperity and greatness. It's a little harder to swallow that a good deal of our scientific lead and prosperity - despite the ever-increasing burdens of non-skilled illegal immigrants and unproductive home-growns - has come from simply seizing German patents and inventions after World War I and far more so after World War II.1

There are those who claim the key to America's felicity has been its Jewish citizens. After all, this is now a "service economy" of stockbrokers and financial and entertainment services. Could America dispense with actually manufacturing or growing anything, and instead focus on the essentials like Broadway shows, Hollywood sitcoms and currency speculation?

The message of Bernt Engelmann's 1974Deutschland ohne Juden, published in English by Bantam Books, New York in 1984 as Germany Without Jews, is clear: You Germans were mediocre until we Jews came, and now that we're gone, you have sunk back into mediocrity.

Engelmann cites endless lists of great Jewish MDs of German or Austrian domicile, several of whom, such as bacteriologists Paul Ehrlich (1854-1915) and Robert Koch (1843-1910), won the Nobel Prize in medicine and physiology (Ehrlich, 1908; Koch, 1905). Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), of dubious credentials, is one of Engelmann's prize examples.

Engelmann also slays entire forests with pages of printed paeans to forgotten Jewish playwrights, songsters, operetta producers, critics, publishers etc. How could one forget the immortal Meyerbeer? To the wary eye, it smacks of ethnic self-congratulation. One gifted Jew writes a piece, another publishes it, yet another reviews it favorably, a fourth sits at the box office counting out his money and a fifth takes his 10 percent as agent - an unconvincing proof that the nation of Mozart, Bach and Beethoven needed music lessons.

Gottlieb Daimler (1834-1900) and Karl Benz (1844-1929) invented the modern gasoline engine in 1878-1887. Other Germans took the lead in 19th-century chemistry and created the first contact lens (in the 1880s), X-rays (Wilhelm Roentgen in 1895), quantum physics (discovered in 1900 by Max Planck, 1858-1947), aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) and last (and least), saccharin in 1913. As for previous centuries, the Germans got no credit for inventing the croissant or "Kipferl," as the Germans call it, in Vienna to celebrate defeating the Turks in 1683; one notes the Turkish religious logo, the crescent (a baked good then snatched up by the French as the "croissant"). Equally, they receive zero credit for baking the first quiche, which in Lorraine and Rhinelander dialects ("Kiisch") simply means "kitchen leftovers baked into a pie."

Baked goods aside, the facts reveal that the most creative period in world history may have been Germany between 1932 and 1945, and that much of America's scientific lead came from looting German patents by the ton, both in World War I and far more so after World War II.

And because Germany was so devastated after World War II, there has been a brain drain ever since of the top young German scientists - to Massachusetts and California for computers and genetics and to greater Los Angeles, Houston and Cape Canaveral for aerospace. As one German scientist remarked: "Since the war, we have not had the financing capabilities for basic research for the long-term future. That kind of serious money only the Americans have. In Germany, and in Japan, also, we do applied and clinical research for immediate applications. But to be on the cutting edge, the money and the positions are now in America and we have to go there."2

An astounding admission of the stripping of German inventiveness after the war came in an October 1946 article by C. Lester Walker in Harper'smagazine. Entitled "Secrets by the Thousands,"*** it presents some problems for the Bernt Engelmanns of this world who imply that German science in the 1932-45 period would have been "nothing without the Jews."

In fact, the article suggests in deadly seriousness that German Chancellor Adolf Hitler had been right, from his point of view, to prolong the war to the last gasp. According to the deputy commanding general of Army Air Forces Intelligence, Air Technical Service Command, in a speech to the American Society of Aeronautical Engineers, "The Germans were preparing rocket surprises for the whole world in general and England in particular which would have, it is believed, changed the course of the war if the invasion had been postponed for so short a time as half a year."


Today, Hermann Oberth (white smock, center) is virtually forgotten outside related scientific circles, although he pioneered Germany's (and therefore the world's) space flight movement. This photo was taken in Berlin on July 23, 1930, just before Oberth demonstrated his rocket engine. To the left of the rocket is 18-year-old Wernher von Braun. He would be central to Germany's World War II ballistic missile development at Peenemünde, a remote coastal island in the Baltic Sea. During the Third Reich's earlier years, rocket technology was centered at Kummersdorf. Hitler visited that complex in September 1933, and it prompted him to grant the scientists more resources than they had expected.

Even without its brilliant Jewish minority, the Germans' "V-2 rocket which bombed London was just a toy compared to what the Germans had up their sleeve." They had 138 types of guided missiles in various stages of production or development, using every kind of remote control device or fuse: radio, radar, wire-guided, continuous wave, acoustics, infrared, light beams and magnetism. And for power the Germans were years ahead in jet propulsion at both subsonic and supersonic speeds - even creating a "jet helicopter" wherein tiny jets spun the helicopter blade tips at blinding speeds.

www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/patents.html
Last Edit: 04 Nov 2015 23:13 by Orangeaid.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 04 Nov 2015 23:16 #4

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 11659
  • Likes received: 8021
The attempt to deflect from the blatant troll has been set straight.

The latest example of US military technology that failed miserably is actually rehashed technology from 50 years ago, that was abandoned then resurrected.
Originally two-stage, the Strypi rocket was first tested in the early 1960s and retired in 1998, when the last official launch was performed on April 17. Altogether, there have been five unsuccessful launches over 50 years, with the previous failure taking place in 1995.

SPARK, or Spaceborne Payload Assist Rocket - Kauai, also known as Super Strypi,[1] is an American expendable launch system developed by the University of Hawaii, Sandia and Aerojet Rocketdyne.[2] Designed to place miniaturized satellites into low Earth and sun-synchronous orbits, it is a derivative of the Strypi rocket which was developed in the 1960s in support of nuclear weapons testing. SPARK is being developed under the Low Earth Orbiting Nanosatellite Integrated Defense Autonomous System (LEONIDAS) program, funded by the Operationally Responsive Space Office of the United States Department of Defense.

SPARK will be a three-stage all-solid carrier rocket, with a spin-stabilized first stage known as LEO-46 and an active attitude control system on the second and third stages. It is launched using a new rail-guided system.[3] It is expected to have a payload capacity of 250 kilograms (550 lb) to a sun-synchronous orbit at an altitude of approximately 400 kilometres (250 mi).[4]Launches will be conducted from Vandenberg Air Force Base's Space Launch Complex 5, which will have been relocated to the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Barking Sands.[5]Aerojet Rocketdyne will produce the motors for all three stages, but Sandia is the prime contractor for the rocket's systems. The United States Air Force will provide launch support.

The first launch of SPARK, named ORS-4, took place on November 3, 2015[6] and was carrying HawaiiSat-1 and several secondary payloads, [7][3] including the the Edison Demonstration of Smallsat Networks.[8] The mission was supposed to test the rocket at its full payload capacity. However, telemetry showed the rocket tumbling soon after liftoff, and the U.S. Air Force released a statement, saying that the "experimental Super Strypi launch vehicle failed in mid-flight shortly after liftoff". [9]

The first launch attempt resulted in a mission failure as the rocket was lost shortly after lift off.[10]
Source: wikipedia

The failed technology is developed by Sandia.

The Sandia National Laboratories, managed and operated by the Sandia Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin), are two major United States Department of Energy research and development national laboratories.

Their primary mission is to develop, engineer, and test the non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons. The primary campus is located on Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico and the other is in Livermore, California, next to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Sandia is a National Nuclear Security Administration laboratory.

Sandia recycles taxpayer money to fund lobbying efforts only to be prosecuted and fined to give it back.

time.com/4007950/nuclear-weapon-sandia-lockheed/

Frank Klotz was involved in the prosecution of Sandia.



Klotz is an Ashkenazi Jew.

On April 8, 2014, Klotz was confirmed as the Department of Energy Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security and Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration
Last Edit: 04 Nov 2015 23:31 by Orangeaid.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 05 Nov 2015 21:19 #5

  • entrangermercenary1
  • entrangermercenary1's Avatar
  • Offline
  • COD Expert
  • Posts: 5424
  • Likes received: 888
Who gives a fuck if the bloke is a Ashenkenazi Jew, how is that relevant ? :facepalm:
Last Edit: 05 Nov 2015 21:45 by Orangeaid. Reason: name calling by blatant troll removed
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 05 Nov 2015 21:49 #6

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 11659
  • Likes received: 8021
The fact that Klotz is an Ashkenazi Jew is highly relevant. The fact that you see it as irrelevant is highly telling of you, your ignorance and brainwashing by the Jew SA military industrial complex.

Back on topic .....



Combining stealth technology and high-speed data links, the RAH-66 Comanche was supposed to be the armed scout helicopter of the 21st century. But all it did was leave a $6.9 billion-size crater in the U.S. Army's budget. Three things killed the Comanche program: the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of drones, and the fact that this helo was an engineering mess.

Still, the 2011 Navy SEAL raid on the Osama bin Laden compound spurred excited media talk about stealth helicopters. Had they made a comeback? According to Army Times, the modified MH-60s used in the raid belonged to a short-lived program that ended in 2000. So, no.
www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/g1339/10-weapons-that-never-made-it/
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 05 Nov 2015 22:07 #7

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 11659
  • Likes received: 8021
Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’

By David Axe

 

July 14, 2014

Tags: AIR FORCE | F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER | F135 ENGINE | LOCKHEED MARTIN | NAVY | PENTAGON |PRATT & WHITNEY

Americans should be worried.

The U.S. military has grounded all its new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters following an incident on June 23, when one of the high-tech warplanes caught fire on the runway of a Florida air base. The no-fly order — which affects at least 50 F-35s at training and test bases in Florida, Arizona, California and Maryland — began on the evening of July 3 and continued through July 11.

All those F-35s sitting idle could be a preview of a future in which potentially thousands of the Pentagon’s warplanes can’t reliably fly.



To be fair, the Pentagon routinely grounds warplanes on a temporary basis following accidents and malfunctions to buy investigators time to identify problems and to give engineers time to fix them.

But there’s real reason to worry. The June incident might reflect serious design flaws that could render the F-35 unsuitable for combat.

For starters, the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 — which can avoid sensor detection thanks to its special shape and coating — simply doesn’t work very well. The Pentagon has had to temporarily ground F-35s no fewer than 13 times since 2007, mostly due to problems with the plane’s Pratt & Whitney-made F135 engine, in particular, with the engines’ turbine blades. The stand-downs lasted at most a few weeks.

“The repeated problems with the same part of the engine may be indications of a serious design and structural problem with the F135 engine,” said Johan Boeder, a Dutch aerospace expert and editor of the online publication JSF News.

Pratt & Whitney has already totally redesigned the F135 in an attempt to end its history of frequent failures. But there’s only so much engineers can do. In a controversial move during the early stages of the F-35′s development, the Pentagon decided to fit the plane with one engine instead of two. Sticking with one motor can help keep down the price of a new plane. But in the F-35′s case, the decision proved self-defeating.



That’s because the F-35 is complex — the result of the Air Force, Marines and Navy all adding features to the basic design. In airplane design, such complexity equals weight. The F-35 is extraordinarily heavy for a single-engine plane, weighing as much as 35 tons with a full load of fuel.

By comparison, the older F-15 fighter weighs 40 tons. But it has two engines. To remain reasonably fast and maneuverable, the F-35′s sole F135 engine must generate no less than 20 tons of thrust — making it history’s most powerful fighter motor.

All that thrust results in extreme levels of stress on engine components. It’s no surprise, then, that the F-35 frequently suffers engine malfunctions. Even with that 20 tons of thrust, the new radar-dodging plane is still sluggish. The F-35 “is a dog … overweight and underpowered,” according to Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington.

In 2008, two analysts at the RAND Corporation, a California think-tank that works closely with the military, programmed a computer simulation to test out the F-35′s fighting ability in a hypothetical air war with China. The results were startling.



“The F-35 is double-inferior,” John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue concluded in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press. The new plane “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,” they warned.

Yet the F-35 is on track to become by far the military’s most numerous warplane. It was designed to replace almost all current fighters in the Air Force and Marine Corps and complement the Navy’s existing F/A-18 jets. The Pentagon plans to acquire roughly 2,400 of the radar-evading F-35s in coming decades, at a cost of more than $400 billion.

Like it or not, the stealthy F-35 is the future of U.S. air power. There are few alternatives. Lockheed Martin’s engineers have done millions of man-hours of work on the design since development began in the 1990s. Starting work on a new plane now would force the Defense Department to wait a decade or more, during which other countries might pull ahead in jet design. Russia, China and Japan are all working on new stealth fighter models.

The Pentagon sounds guardedly optimistic about the current F-35 grounding. “Additional inspections of F-35 engines have been ordered,” Rear Admiral John Kirby, a military spokeman said, “and return to flight will be determined based on inspection results and analysis of engineering data.”

Minor fixes might get America’s future warplane flying again soon — for a while. But fundamental design flaws could vex the F-35 for decades to come, forcing the Pentagon to suspend flying far too often for the majority of its fighter fleet, potentially jeopardizing U.S. national security.

PHOTO (TOP): F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is seen at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, Maryland, January 20, 2012. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

PHOTO (INSERT 1): Three F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (rear to front) AF-2, AF-3 and AF-4, can be seen flying over Edwards Air Force Base, December 10, 2011. REUTERS/Lockheed Martin/Darin Russell/Handout

PHOTO (INSERT 2): Workers can be seen on the moving line and forward fuselage assembly areas for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at Lockheed Martin Corp’s factory located in Fort Worth, Texas, October 13, 2011. REUTERS/Lockheed Martin/Randy A. Crites/Handout

PHOTO (INSERT 3): Workers can be seen on the moving line and forward fuselage assembly areas for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at Lockheed Martin Corp’s factory located in Fort Worth, Texas, October 13, 2011. REUTERS/Lockheed Martin/Randy A. Crites/Handout

blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/ 
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 06 Nov 2015 08:23 #8

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20433
  • Likes received: 7961

What exactly is NOT military technology in USrael?



They looted everything they could get, even abducted many scientists under death threats against their families
and still they are completely UNABLE to make use of the stolen knowledge. Guess why! :cool:









31.10.14

Statement from Virgin Galactic

31.10.14
Statement from Virgin Galactic

Virgin Galactic's partner Scaled Composites conducted a powered test flight of SpaceShipTwo earlier today. During the test, the vehicle suffered a serious anomaly resulting in the loss of the vehicle. The WhiteKnightTwo carrier aircraft landed safely.

The Virgin Galactic team is cooperating with our partners at Scaled Composites and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) as well as local authorities. We understand that the NTSB is scheduled to arrive in Mojave tomorrow morning (Saturday Nov. 1) to commence their investigation, which is expected to last several days.

Local authorities have confirmed that one of the two Scaled Composites pilots died during the accident. The other pilot parachuted to the ground and is being treated at a local hospital. All of us at Virgin Galactic are deeply saddened by today’s events. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of all those affected by this accident.


George Whitesides, CEO of Virgin Galactic, provided the following statement:

“Our primary thoughts at this moment are with the crew and family, and we’re doing everything we can for them now. I’d like to recognize the work of the first responders who we work with in the Antelope Valley for their efforts on behalf of the team. We’re also thinking of the team members that we have at the companies that have been working on this program.

Space is hard and today was a tough day. We are going to be supporting the investigation as we figure out what happened today. We’re going to get through it. The future rests in many ways on hard days like this, but we believe we owe it to the team, that has been working so hard on this endeavour, to understand this and to move forward. And that is what we’ll do.”

Sir Richard Branson is on his way to Mojave and is expected to arrive by early Saturday morning.



We understand your interest in additional information. It is our understanding that there will be another press conference over the weekend at the Mojave Air & Space Port. We will post any logistical details as they become available, and we will provide another update from Virgin Galactic at that time in conjunction with the press briefing.

All press enquiries regarding todays test flight incident should be forwarded to:
VirginGalacticPress @edelman.com (edel = noble in German)

www.virgingalactic.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipTwo
www.newscientist.com/article/dn26489-virgin-galactics-spaceshiptwo-in-fatal-crash.html
gizmodo.com/virgin-galactic-experiences-first-major-accident-possi-1653360863 PICS





29 October 2014


Orbital Sciences Antares rocket was due to take off from Wallops Island, Virginia, at 6.22pm EST
Accident occurred 6 seconds after lift-off









VIDEOS www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2810128/Ready-liftoff-Nighttime-rocket-launch-International-Space-Station-visible-East-Coast.html

.
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Last Edit: 06 Nov 2015 08:27 by PFIZIPFEI.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 06 Nov 2015 16:55 #9

  • entrangermercenary1
  • entrangermercenary1's Avatar
  • Offline
  • COD Expert
  • Posts: 5424
  • Likes received: 888
Orangeaid wrote:
Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’

By David Axe

 

July 14, 2014

Tags: AIR FORCE | F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER | F135 ENGINE | LOCKHEED MARTIN | NAVY | PENTAGON |PRATT & WHITNEY

Americans should be worried.

The U.S. military has grounded all its new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters following an incident on June 23, when one of the high-tech warplanes caught fire on the runway of a Florida air base. The no-fly order — which affects at least 50 F-35s at training and test bases in Florida, Arizona, California and Maryland — began on the evening of July 3 and continued through July 11.

All those F-35s sitting idle could be a preview of a future in which potentially thousands of the Pentagon’s warplanes can’t reliably fly.



To be fair, the Pentagon routinely grounds warplanes on a temporary basis following accidents and malfunctions to buy investigators time to identify problems and to give engineers time to fix them.

But there’s real reason to worry. The June incident might reflect serious design flaws that could render the F-35 unsuitable for combat.

For starters, the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 — which can avoid sensor detection thanks to its special shape and coating — simply doesn’t work very well. The Pentagon has had to temporarily ground F-35s no fewer than 13 times since 2007, mostly due to problems with the plane’s Pratt & Whitney-made F135 engine, in particular, with the engines’ turbine blades. The stand-downs lasted at most a few weeks.

“The repeated problems with the same part of the engine may be indications of a serious design and structural problem with the F135 engine,” said Johan Boeder, a Dutch aerospace expert and editor of the online publication JSF News.

Pratt & Whitney has already totally redesigned the F135 in an attempt to end its history of frequent failures. But there’s only so much engineers can do. In a controversial move during the early stages of the F-35′s development, the Pentagon decided to fit the plane with one engine instead of two. Sticking with one motor can help keep down the price of a new plane. But in the F-35′s case, the decision proved self-defeating.



That’s because the F-35 is complex — the result of the Air Force, Marines and Navy all adding features to the basic design. In airplane design, such complexity equals weight. The F-35 is extraordinarily heavy for a single-engine plane, weighing as much as 35 tons with a full load of fuel.

By comparison, the older F-15 fighter weighs 40 tons. But it has two engines. To remain reasonably fast and maneuverable, the F-35′s sole F135 engine must generate no less than 20 tons of thrust — making it history’s most powerful fighter motor.

All that thrust results in extreme levels of stress on engine components. It’s no surprise, then, that the F-35 frequently suffers engine malfunctions. Even with that 20 tons of thrust, the new radar-dodging plane is still sluggish. The F-35 “is a dog … overweight and underpowered,” according to Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington.

In 2008, two analysts at the RAND Corporation, a California think-tank that works closely with the military, programmed a computer simulation to test out the F-35′s fighting ability in a hypothetical air war with China. The results were startling.



“The F-35 is double-inferior,” John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue concluded in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press. The new plane “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,” they warned.

Yet the F-35 is on track to become by far the military’s most numerous warplane. It was designed to replace almost all current fighters in the Air Force and Marine Corps and complement the Navy’s existing F/A-18 jets. The Pentagon plans to acquire roughly 2,400 of the radar-evading F-35s in coming decades, at a cost of more than $400 billion.

Like it or not, the stealthy F-35 is the future of U.S. air power. There are few alternatives. Lockheed Martin’s engineers have done millions of man-hours of work on the design since development began in the 1990s. Starting work on a new plane now would force the Defense Department to wait a decade or more, during which other countries might pull ahead in jet design. Russia, China and Japan are all working on new stealth fighter models.

The Pentagon sounds guardedly optimistic about the current F-35 grounding. “Additional inspections of F-35 engines have been ordered,” Rear Admiral John Kirby, a military spokeman said, “and return to flight will be determined based on inspection results and analysis of engineering data.”

Minor fixes might get America’s future warplane flying again soon — for a while. But fundamental design flaws could vex the F-35 for decades to come, forcing the Pentagon to suspend flying far too often for the majority of its fighter fleet, potentially jeopardizing U.S. national security.

PHOTO (TOP): F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is seen at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, Maryland, January 20, 2012. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

PHOTO (INSERT 1): Three F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (rear to front) AF-2, AF-3 and AF-4, can be seen flying over Edwards Air Force Base, December 10, 2011. REUTERS/Lockheed Martin/Darin Russell/Handout

PHOTO (INSERT 2): Workers can be seen on the moving line and forward fuselage assembly areas for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at Lockheed Martin Corp’s factory located in Fort Worth, Texas, October 13, 2011. REUTERS/Lockheed Martin/Randy A. Crites/Handout

PHOTO (INSERT 3): Workers can be seen on the moving line and forward fuselage assembly areas for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at Lockheed Martin Corp’s factory located in Fort Worth, Texas, October 13, 2011. REUTERS/Lockheed Martin/Randy A. Crites/Handout

blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/ 

Has this project been scrapped? :larf:

Its that crap, that Australia is spending $17 billion on purchasing 72 F-35s :facepalm:

Justin Trudeau the new Canadian Primeminister is binning it though, due to being a yellow pacifist kaaaaaaaaant. I do hope IS pay him a visit soon :thumbup:

Even the Japs have ordered 42..

www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptors-to-japan-01909/

I guess these Governments and military technicians need to log on here and find out what a shit purchase the F-35 is.. :ponda: :larf:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 06 Nov 2015 16:57 #10

  • entrangermercenary1
  • entrangermercenary1's Avatar
  • Offline
  • COD Expert
  • Posts: 5424
  • Likes received: 888
PFIZIPFEI wrote:

What exactly is NOT military technology in USrael?



They looted everything they could get, even abducted many scientists under death threats against their families
and still they are completely UNABLE to make use of the stolen knowledge. Guess why! :cool:









31.10.14

Statement from Virgin Galactic

31.10.14
Statement from Virgin Galactic

Virgin Galactic's partner Scaled Composites conducted a powered test flight of SpaceShipTwo earlier today. During the test, the vehicle suffered a serious anomaly resulting in the loss of the vehicle. The WhiteKnightTwo carrier aircraft landed safely.

The Virgin Galactic team is cooperating with our partners at Scaled Composites and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) as well as local authorities. We understand that the NTSB is scheduled to arrive in Mojave tomorrow morning (Saturday Nov. 1) to commence their investigation, which is expected to last several days.

Local authorities have confirmed that one of the two Scaled Composites pilots died during the accident. The other pilot parachuted to the ground and is being treated at a local hospital. All of us at Virgin Galactic are deeply saddened by today’s events. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of all those affected by this accident.


George Whitesides, CEO of Virgin Galactic, provided the following statement:

“Our primary thoughts at this moment are with the crew and family, and we’re doing everything we can for them now. I’d like to recognize the work of the first responders who we work with in the Antelope Valley for their efforts on behalf of the team. We’re also thinking of the team members that we have at the companies that have been working on this program.

Space is hard and today was a tough day. We are going to be supporting the investigation as we figure out what happened today. We’re going to get through it. The future rests in many ways on hard days like this, but we believe we owe it to the team, that has been working so hard on this endeavour, to understand this and to move forward. And that is what we’ll do.”

Sir Richard Branson is on his way to Mojave and is expected to arrive by early Saturday morning.



We understand your interest in additional information. It is our understanding that there will be another press conference over the weekend at the Mojave Air & Space Port. We will post any logistical details as they become available, and we will provide another update from Virgin Galactic at that time in conjunction with the press briefing.

All press enquiries regarding todays test flight incident should be forwarded to:
VirginGalacticPress @edelman.com (edel = noble in German)

www.virgingalactic.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipTwo
www.newscientist.com/article/dn26489-virgin-galactics-spaceshiptwo-in-fatal-crash.html
gizmodo.com/virgin-galactic-experiences-first-major-accident-possi-1653360863 PICS





29 October 2014


Orbital Sciences Antares rocket was due to take off from Wallops Island, Virginia, at 6.22pm EST
Accident occurred 6 seconds after lift-off









VIDEOS www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2810128/Ready-liftoff-Nighttime-rocket-launch-International-Space-Station-visible-East-Coast.html

.

Hmmm Phfizzzziiiiii....the Kraut scientists were quite willing to come onboard with the Yanks, it was them or the Russians, and I guess they did not fancy there chances in Siberia :larf: :iitm:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 07 Nov 2015 08:24 #11

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20433
  • Likes received: 7961
They are able to down a state of the art Zeppelin in 1937







but unable to keep their own pentagon toy blimp up in 2015



"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Last Edit: 07 Nov 2015 08:29 by PFIZIPFEI.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 08 Nov 2015 14:14 #12

  • Oracle
  • Oracle's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Futurist & Anthropogenist
  • Posts: 3979
  • Likes received: 3241
I wouldn't say US military tech is total rubbish, it is just that their stuff only tends to work in ideal lab conditions, which has no relevance to actual deployment.
Its tech for only sunny days, and rain is not anticipated in any scenario. :chuckle:
The resident shill announced
blue_tackler wrote:
please make my profile inactive, I no longer want to have any connection to this forum.

yet he is trolling further. :facepalm:

blue_tackler wrote:
the lice are only going to jump onto other typhus victim

Prime example of holocaustianity mental issues, clinically insane, and utterly ill informed, a danger to public health if this dude was working for CDC.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Orangeaid

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 09 Nov 2015 16:43 #13

  • entrangermercenary1
  • entrangermercenary1's Avatar
  • Offline
  • COD Expert
  • Posts: 5424
  • Likes received: 888
Oracle wrote:
I wouldn't say US military tech is total rubbish, it is just that their stuff only tends to work in ideal lab conditions, which has no relevance to actual deployment.
Its tech for only sunny days, and rain is not anticipated in any scenario. :chuckle:

Did not American technology kick your Kraut asses all over Europe?

So the puzzling thought for me is if this technology is so bad, how come Israel has not been decimated over the last 60yrs by a technological superior Arab army? :ponda: :wissl: :larf: After all the Yanks supply most of the kit :facepalm:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 11 Nov 2015 20:58 #14

  • entrangermercenary1
  • entrangermercenary1's Avatar
  • Offline
  • COD Expert
  • Posts: 5424
  • Likes received: 888
I guess the latest Russian technology given to the Syrians and operated by joint Syrian Russian units was not wound up when this happened: That American stealth shit is soooo poor :ponda:

Report: Israel Strikes Target in Syria ... Again
Media in both countries are reporting that Damascus Airport was hit by Israeli planes.

www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/report-israel-strikes-target-in-syria/415446/?
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 24 Nov 2015 17:47 #15

  • entrangermercenary1
  • entrangermercenary1's Avatar
  • Offline
  • COD Expert
  • Posts: 5424
  • Likes received: 888
Seems a couple of F16s with fucking shit technology took out a Super duper Russian SU24 :wissl: Seems they also took out the SAR with a TOW when it landed :facepalm:
So much for its Countermeasures and navigation systems :ponda:
Not the fucking brightest the soviets :larf:

www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/24/russian-jet-downed-by-turkish-planes-near-syrian-border-live-updates
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 27 Nov 2015 19:34 #16

  • oz93666
  • oz93666's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
  • Posts: 151
  • Likes received: 54
These ridiculous rockets and fighter jets that don't work , are just distractions and serve to impoverish the tax payer....

the real stuff is never public .... most UFO's now seen are piloted by military, back engineered from downed ET craft... there's no knowing what they have , but most respected analysts agree there are bases on moon and mars with thousands of military personnel... time travel technology, and much more.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 29 Nov 2015 12:25 #17

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 11659
  • Likes received: 8021
USS Donald Cook is an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer in the US Navy and is considered as one of, if not the most, powerful warships in America’s arsenal, but which was completely disabled by Russian forces in the Black Sea this past April.



The Russia & India Report News Service have also confirmed this “incident” in an article from May this year:

“The Su-24 Russian tactical bomber which approached the Donald Cook carried no bombs or missiles but a container with the Khibiny radio-electronic military system. Having approached the destroyer, Khibiny was used to switch off the American destroyer’s radar, battle control circuits and data exchange systems. In other words, it turned off the whole Aegis by remote control. After this, the Su-24 simulated a missile attack at the “blind and deaf” ship, and repeated the manoeuvre 12 times. When the Russian fighter left, the Donald Cook rushed to a Romanian port and never approached Russian waters again.”

So gravely demoralizing was this “incident” to the US Navy that 27 sailors from the USS Donald Cook requested to be relieved from active service after their warship’s total disablement by the technologically superior Russian forces.

The Pacific Fleet’s guided missile cruiser Varyag sent to protect President Putin is equipped with (at least) three new and highly secretive Altius unmanned air vehicles(UAV) that are all equipped with both the Khibinyand Borisoglebsk-2 electronic warfare systems. Therefore it is no wonder that the US Navy has “fled in fear.

Whether President Putin himself is in fear of the Obama regime’s plot to assassinate him can be judged at best by his interview given today to TASS, where he  declares that the Russian economy won’t be dominated by America’s “Dollar Dictatorship”.


Khibiny is on the wingtips of this Sukhoi Su-34

www.stankovuniversallaw.com/2014/11/breaking-news-us-navy-flees-in-terror-as-russian-warships-near-australia/
Last Edit: 29 Nov 2015 12:26 by Orangeaid.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 12 Dec 2015 14:41 #18

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 11659
  • Likes received: 8021
US Navy’s newest ship breaks down 20 days after commissioning, towed to emergency repair

Published time: 12 Dec, 2015 10:51

The US Navy’s brand new littoral combat ship, the Milwaukee, broke down on Friday and had to be towed for emergency repair just three weeks after commissioning. The warship’s troubles came after several days of propulsion system problems.

The USS Milwaukee was traveling from Halifax, Canada to Mayport, Florida, on its way to its homeport in San Diego when it suffered an engineering failure, the Navy Times reported.

US Navy’s troubled Littoral Combat Ship program could face the axe

The salvage ship Grapple towed it more than 40 nautical miles to the Joint Expeditionary Base in Little Creek, Virginia, where the cause of the failure will be traced and repairs carried out.

Initial indications point to metal filings in the lube oil filter as the cause of the shutdown, the report said. The ship experienced propulsion problems after leaving Halifax. Engineers cleaned out the metal debris and locked the port shaft as a precaution, but it appears the fix wasn’t enough to keep the Milwaukee running.

"Reporting of a complete loss of propulsion on USS Milwaukee (LCS 5) is deeply alarming, particularly given this ship was commissioned just 20 days ago," Senator John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement to the Times.

The USS Milwaukee is the third ship of the Freedom class, Lockheed Martin’s contribution for the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship program. The Navy couldn’t choose between this design and the rival contender from General Dynamics, the Independence-class LCS and contracted a dozen of each class. Three of each has been commissioned so far.

The LCS program was designed to produce a multipurpose warship for patrolling littoral zones, waters close to shore. It suffered from an overblown budget and concerns over the warship’s ability to survive actual combat.

www.rt.com/usa/325710-littoral-ship-milwaukee-breakdown/
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Is US Military Technology Rubbish? 13 Dec 2015 07:23 #19

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 11659
  • Likes received: 8021
F-35 deathtrap: Pentagon jet’s ejection seat could snap pilot’s neck

Published time: 6 Oct, 2015 11:07



A Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighter. © U.S. Air Force / Staff Sgt. Joely Santiago / Reuters

Tests on the Pentagon’s troubled F-35 fighter jet have exposed a potentially life-threatening blunder as its ejection seat could snap a slender pilot’s neck when attempting to save his life, Defense News reports, citing a source close to the program.

Ejection tests performed in slow flying speed mode in August revealed that the pilot’s US16E seat constructed by contractor Martin-Baker has an excessive forward rotating momentum, which – combined with the force of the ejected seat shot out of the aircraft – snapped a lightweight dummy’s neck.

The US Air Force has already barred pilots weighing less than 61 kilograms from flying 5G aircraft until the problem is fixed, Defense News reports.

“The bottom line is, they have to get into the realm where the seat allows that weight of a pilot less than 136 pounds [approx. 61 kg] [to] safely eject out of the airplane,” Major General Jeffrey Harrigian, F-35 integration office director, told Defense News.“They found some areas that particularly at slower speeds they were concerned about, so that drove the restriction that we have right now.”

There are not many military pilots weighing 60 kilograms, yet even a beefier pilot could face spondylolisthesis (dislocation of the vertebra) in an ejection situation. Consequently, at this stage, an emergency evacuation from F-35 in distress might become a risky game of Russian roulette for pilots.
www.rt.com/news/317758-f35-ejection-seat-neck/
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Related topics

Topic subjectRelevanceDate of latest post
PFIZPFEI's RUBBISH BIN.7.53Monday, 01 May 2017
Why do posts that PHIZIPFEL don't like, end up in the Rubbish Bin?7.45Sunday, 16 July 2017
RUBBISH BIN (no insult intended)7.45Saturday, 13 January 2018
Primitive Technology6.24Friday, 29 January 2016
What's about this technology ideas?6.24Wednesday, 21 June 2017
Ancient technology self sufficient6.17Friday, 18 October 2019
Voice to skull technology6.17Saturday, 02 February 2019
The Dangers of Microwave Technology6.17Monday, 23 February 2015
If Whites wouldn't have given away their technology and knowledge...6.1Monday, 10 December 2018
Negative effects of modern technology......6.1Sunday, 09 March 2014
Moderators: Orangeaid, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 263 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 239 - Raised
( £ 185 GBP )
donation thermometer
70%
Updated
27th February 2020

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.