Trump drops Twitter bomb on Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet

“Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!” Trump tweeted Thursday.

There is no comparable F-18 Super Hornet to price-out. The F-35 has shown an ability to shoot down non-planer aircraft (non-airplane aircraft), which, I think, makes it a generation or two ahead of the F-18 Super Hornet. The F-35 is built to be a 5th generation fighter and the F-18 was built to be a 3rd generation fighter.

What gives the F-35 its designation as a 5th generation fighter (if developed–a big if), the F-35 doesn’t rely on a plane of air to maneuver on.

The F-35 maneuvers in  directions other than parallel to the plane it is on and without having to change the direction of that plane in flight. Most other aircraft and all airplanes are dependent on one plane of air and maneuvers by bending that plane.

In other words, the F-35’s maneuvering is not dependent on a linear plane. The F-35 flight can be considered, in that context, to be nonlinear. It is a 5th generation fighter jet. If Trump’s administration is figuring to prepare to fight a tactical (1st generation) nuclear war as stated, then probably the F-18 Super Hornet is the machine to go for. If his administration is planning to participate in the 4th generation war we have, then they should really think about getting serious about developing the F-35.

Part of this ability of nonlinear flight of the F-35 is in its structural design. The F-35 has an interior center of mass that gives it symmetry similar to that of a flying saucer. Coupled with an engine that is virtually able to move in all directions enables the aircraft and all targeting systems to revolve around the center of mass. In that sense, the F-35 should be able to target an aircraft behind, or any other direction, as easily as it is able to locked on and destroy the aircraft in front. This seems to me, if developed, to be some kind of an advantage and what, at least in part, gives the F-35 its status as a 5th generation fighter.

The other ability of the 5th generation F-35 fighter (and there may be more) that makes it a non-nonlinear fighter depends on it hooking into the virtual world of the world wide web and connecting that world to its real world in realtime, in all directions, in all environments, and all at once.

And while the F-35 has not proven itself in simulated dog fights with fighters of lesser generation, other fighters, as far as I know, haven’t proven themselves able to fight a battle waged in 5th generation  war. I think the F-35 has, at least in a small way. It was used to successfully shoot down missiles in flight.

That is the war the F-35 is created for and the war we are fighting right now today. So to me it comes down to being able to fight the war we have, or fighting the war the Trump administration apparently wants.

President-elect Donald Trump elevated his criticism of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter today, saying he’s asked Boeing to explore pricing for an alternative to the costly fighter jet.

Now “alternative” is another narrative. In warfare or in the context of a political solution, i.e. one State/ Two State solution?

 

Source: Trump drops Twitter bomb on Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet – POLITICO

The first rule of Boyd: Observation.

“This is unprecedented,” said Brad Crone, a longtime Democratic consultant and North Carolina history buff. “This is new waters that we’re sailing into.”

Author’s note: I apologize for using the image of the German leader. It turns out, according to my DNA my structure is 36% Western Europe, 26% Celtic speaker, and 19% Scandinavian and I wanted you to pay attention.

Well said Brad Crone. Just like the waters Jesus walked on, new waters means it is time to bring out the Evangelicals.

Just because you are the Architect, Builder, or Carpenter, as I am trying to be, doesn’t mean you don’t need the people who will get the word out–to tell the world what your project is all about. It’s called transparency.

Like all knowledge and subsets of knowledge, transparency is inheriantly destructive. The wise Architect, Builder, or Carpenter gives the nod, to go ahead and spread the word, after all the decision making is done and it’s now time for action.

The time for action is when the Carpenter, Builder, and Architect have a position and are postured to go forward with the project. This time may be upon me.

In house building or remodeling, those “Evangelicals” are the inspectors working with the code guys. In my city they used to be in the planning department. My favorite Evangelical was named Jim Schwinof.

He turned out to be one of the good-guys who ran their departments well, at the smelter that I worked as a millwright. His time, at the position he held, could be called tumultuous times for him, but he postured through it.

Jim had to navigate the path between the working gray areas between the Union and Management.I was a part of the send-off committee, representing the Union, seeing him down the path and into that tumultuous filled void. I can tell you the send-off wasn’t pretty.

Well maybe it was beautiful, in a touchy feely way sort of way. At least it was a send-off where everyone had a red and toasty feeling afterwards.

This is the first rule of Boyd–Observation.

Source: Democrat’s lead widens in North Carolina governor’s race

NeoCon Deux

I think I can safely say that, so far, the “winners” of the 2016 elections in the U.S.A. were the NeoCons. Trump supporters have elected someone not in their image and those against Trump are fighting fascists, who will have no power in a Trump administration. Trump is a businessman not a fascist, who knew his customers, but has no idea how the real political world works.

So it is the NeoCons (masters of political power) who are in the position, through the likes of Mike Pence, to bring democracy to the U.S.A., much like they did for Iraq under the guise of Dick Cheney.

Both the Congress and the White House has been “Trumped” by the new V.P. elect Mike Pence. Once Trump starts electing Supreme Court Justices the influence the NeoCons have on America’s power will be almost total. I think it is also safe to say that Trump is not going to nominate any Supreme Court Justice that the NeoCons won’t like.

So lookout world, you are either with us or against us (GWB policy), and there will be many against us, as the fascist take control of our culture, in much of the same way the NeoCons will take control of our structure.

Enduring Values

I believe those were the words the guy in charge of Obama’s legacy used to describe the US military’s pivot towards, or what is now called, the “Indo-Pacific”.

The words used to describe the pivot was changed from “Asia-Pacific” to “Indo-Pacific”. The words were changed to highlight the most important partner in the area included in the pivot.

I believe the guy in charged used “enduring values” (if that was the correct quote) in his conversation about the  “pivot”,  because a “pivot” with “enduring values” in its narrative has no change in momentum nor values.

The US military representing the values of the U.S.A isn’t turning towards the Pacific, because it never really left. All the US military needs to know is whose with them in this pivot.

In other words, in order for the US to pivot towards the Pacific, we don’t have to fight the momentum of changing values to get there. Our values are in the pivot, and they are highlighted in India.

So I guess the guy was basically saying “stuff it”, we are pivoting towards an area of the globe in which our values are the same as India’s and everyone else within the area of the Indo-Pacific Pivot.

For a nation such as the US, who are supposed to be sons of Abraham,  this is quite a big deal. For an area that owns most of our debt, it is a reassurance of the repaying of that debt.

I think this repaying of debt is going to surprize a bunch of people in the US, who thought nukes countered debt (rock over paper).

North Korea first.

.

Did news story on riches of China’s Premier weaken reformists?

Bo Xilai is seen as a representative of the leftist wing of the party (which means conservative in China) that is pitted against reformists represented by Wen Jiabao.

If my post on structure and culture is correct that the difference between the Left and Right is structural while Conservative and Liberal differences are cultural, then it is easy to understand the above quote.

Bo Xilai, as a representative of the leftist wing of the party is not structurally in favor of a strong centralist government that acts like a normalizing force between Conservative and Liberal forces inside the Chinese society.

Instead Bo Xilai wants to culturally see the Conservative and Liberal force aligned perpendicular to each other, with the society moving either right or left depending on which force (Conservative or Liberal) is larger. (It should be noted that in this case “right” and “left” is only direction not structure, i.e, when the society moves to the “right” it becomes more conservative–to the “left” more liberal.)

As a Conservative, Bo wants the resources of the economy to continue flowing towards the center (China), but he doesn’t want those at the center to become “gods” and Act like a normalizing force.

A normalizing force controls the friction within a society, and Bo, because of his Liberal and Conservative market forces, doesn’t want friction.

Bo is less against the structure of the Right than he is for the non-frictional market forces of capitalism.  Bo simply wants, through market forces, for the society to become more liberal or conservative depending on which force (Liberal or Conservative) is stronger.

Unlike those on the Right, Bo on the Left wants the Conservative and Liberal forces to control each other, depending on which force is greater.

The structure of the Left that Bo Xilai has been following has been very good to him in the resource department. By being Conservative in position and Left in structure, Bo wants those resources to continue coming towards the center, with him at the center.

But Bo’s effort to structure his country as the Left did not happen, at this leadership change in China. The news story on the riches of China’s Premier may have weakened Bo’s effort, because the release of the story created friction.

The  normalizing structure of the Right controls friction. In fact, except for corruption and an increase of market forces for the poor, there is no structure (such as voting in a Democratic society) to control friction inside China, except for the military.

Those who have just come to power in China control the military, and have decided to Liberally change Bo’s Conservative direction for the country. Bo wanted his country to continue being controlled by market forces, and the leadership change is against his ideas.

The new leadership change in China means a move to re-structure the country as that of the Right, with a strong normalizing central force that controls the friction created by Conservative and Liberal forces at odds with themselves.

Also the leadership change means that China will continue to move Liberally outward, as the leadership needs growth to control the military. Growth outward means China will be gaining forces both Liberal and Conservative under the control of  their Normalizing force.

These Liberal and Conservative forces that China will be gaining as she moves outward will be controlled by an even stronger (if this leadership change actually “takes”) Normalizing force that is Chinese, and more specifically China.

War is brewing in the Pacific, and this move by China has done nothing to make the odds of this happening less, unless the countries of the Pacific what to be control by a Chinese Normalizing force, instead of market forces both Conservative and Liberal.

Maybe the people of China will lessen the odds of war, but that lessening will be up to the people of China and not their leaders that they have just “elected”.

via Did news story on riches of China’s Premier weaken reformists? « China Daily Mail.

K.I.S.S. (K.O.S.S.)

…while President Obama’s staff prefer to emphasize to the administration’s many successes in counterterrorism operations instead of the accumulation of serious issues faced by the Department of Defense, the armed services and America’s returning veterans.

via The Coming National Defense Crack-Up – Independent Voter Network.

Yes, there is a “Coming national defense crack-up” coming, but that doesn’t mean that our national defense doesn’t have a strategy in the Global War On Terror.

The strategy is two prong.

The first prong skewers the process of “Act” that keeps the Islamist who perpetrated 9/11 from Orienting themselves, from a position of advantage. This simply means we have to  “stir” the hive to keep a plan, like that which happened on 9/11, from happening.

The second prong is one that accumulates an “Orientation” of rule-sets, which brought about an end to the Crusades. It was an Orientation of accommodation.

These condition of accommodation required the nation-state of interest to become “Islamic” instead of Christian. The Crusades ended as Jerusalem became Islamic, and the God fearing Christians existed with the Muslims.

As the US is the greatest bearer of the power of Christianity, next to the Vatican, the second prong requires the US to turn-over nations, who are under the BushII “Crusade”, to Islam, which is what happen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the nation-states most affected by the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring was a civil war, but the outcome has been mostly to the advantage of the Islamist.

So, if there needs to be a debate in America, I suggest we debate the thought that we are  “turning” the US military power in the South Pacific. I don’t think it is happening, we are simply creating a line in the sand.

My thought is that there hasn’t been a turning of the power of the USA towards the Pacific. The real strategy has been that the USA has formed two fronts–one that crosses Australia and the other front that crosses Jerusalem.

Jerusalem marks the line, that America will not cross, in regards to Islam and the Middle East, as much as Australia marks the line that America will not cross in the South Pacific, and China.

To bring the war in the Middle East, fought by the nation of the Great Experiment, to a conclusion, we need to keep our strategy simple folks.

The Coming National Defense Crack-Up

…while President Obama’s staff prefer to emphasize to the administration’s many successes in counterterrorism operations instead of the accumulation of serious issues faced by the Department of Defense, the armed services and America’s returning veterans.

via The Coming National Defense Crack-Up – Independent Voter Network.

Yes, there is a “Coming national defense crack-up” coming, but that doesn’t mean that our national defense doesn’t have a strategy in the Global War On Terror.

The strategy is two prong.

The first prong skewers the process of “Act” that keeps the Islamist who perpetrated 9/11 from Orienting themselves, from a position of advantage. This simply means we  “stir” the hive to keep a plan, like that which happened on 9/11, from happening.

The second prong is one that accumulates an “Orientation” like that created to take advantage of the conditions, which enabled the Crusades to end, an Orientation of accommodation.

These condition of accommodation required the nation-state of interest to become “Islamic” instead of Christian. The Crusades ended as Jerusalem became Islamic, and the God fearing Christians existed with the Muslims.

As the US is the greatest bearer of the power of Christianity, next to the Vatican, the second prong requires the US to turn-over nations, who are under the BushII “Crusade”, to Islam, which is happening.

So, if there needs to be a debate, I suggest we debate the thought that we are  “turning” of the US military power in the South Pacific.

There hasn’t really been a turning of the power of the USA towards the Pacific. The USA has formed two fronts–one that crosses Australia and the other that crosses Jerusalem.

Jerusalem marks the line, that America will not cross, in regards to Islam and the Middle East, as much as Australia marks the line that America will not cross in the South Pacific, and China.

To bring this war, fought by the nation of the Great Experiment to a conclusion, we need to keep this simple folks.