Friday, March 03, 2017

The Scariest Part Is If You Take Him at His Word

Donald Trump, eager to pump up his defence cred, recently described himself as the "most militaristic" person in the world.

Sure that's the now standard bombast from a pathologically narcissistic degenerate but what if that was true or if it was something Trump aspired to be, the most militaristic person in the world.

History is full of people who were the "most militaristic" of their time. They range from Alexander the Great to Adolph Hitler. Some of those, like Alexander, soared to greatness. Yet there were plenty of hyper-militarists who left nothing but ashes in their wake. When it comes to character and intellect, it'd be hard to put Trump in the Alexander category. Probably a lot more like the other option.

So now we have a new game. When Trump describes himself as the greatest, or the most, or the biggest anything what he's saying is that he's the most extreme of whatever it is he's boasting about. Then think of all the other extremists in that category and see if you're not scared shitless.


Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Trump has stated his support for more aircraft carriers!
Aircraft carriers are as obsolete as the Trebuchet.
He now has glowing remarks for the F35 which is one computer hack way from being ineffective

The mainframe for the F22 and F35 has similar problems.



The Mound of Sound said...

When America lost its RQ-170 stealth drone over Iran a few years ago, the Iranians claimed they devised a means to hack the drone's systems which allowed them to not just bring it down but to more or less safely land it.

When the Russians and Chinese were faced with countering the F-22/F-35 stealth aircraft they worked on a suite of technologies. We're all aware of the L-band radar fix but that was then married with IR and even long range optical sensors to allow weapons to not only detect stealth aircraft but to target them.

The Chinese also realized that the 35's stealth depended on not-emitting giveaway radar waves. Instead it was to receive navigation, threat awareness and targeting data from other aircraft flying at a distance in support. What that told the Chinese is that stealth technology was dependent on windows or portals by which this essential supporting data could be received. They concluded these portals could be used by defenders to implant corrupt code and data to scramble the 35's systems, perhaps even bring it down.

Lockheed and the American military of late have been praising the 35's performance as revolutionary but it's hogwash. The raison d'etre of the 35 is its ability to operate effectively in heavily defended hostile airspace - peer on peer warfare, i.e. China and Russia. That technology, cost and vulnerability is wasted flying missions over Afghanistan.

Until we see how the F-35 performs against capable, high-tech defences designed specifically to defeat it, we'll never know whether it's any good or just an overdue, overpriced and underperforming boondoggle.

Like the F-117 before it, the F-35 is largely fixed technology. There's no spare room inside it and you can't add stuff outside without defeating its stealth capability. In other words, it's largely fixed in time to 20-years ago. Its intended adversaries, however, are still in development which means they have a potentially huge advantage.

The other thing that's always overlooked is that, while China's J-20 may not be as stealthy as the F-35 that probably doesn't matter. China would be using its stealth aircraft in its own territory with all the home turf advantages. The F-35 needs vastly superior stealth because it will be operating in hostile airspace. This could seriously negate any notional F-35 advantage, particularly in air combat scenarios.

Anonymous said...

We seem to share an interest n aviation.

Off subject..

The F35 is a first strike aircraft.
Who do the users of this aircraft intend to strike?
It cannot be Russia as a state in a losing position would use nuclear weapons as a last resort.

I can only conclude that at this moment in time Iran and Venezuela are high on the list ; for their resources.

Venezuela will likely be first as they have little means to defend themselves.

Iran , whilst denying it would love to develop a nuclear arsenal; not to attack Israel but to defend itself.
You don't attack those with a nuclear capability to retaliate..


Purple library guy said...

I wouldn't say Alexander was the "most militaristic". In his day, conquering people was what you did, if you could. He just happened to be the best at it. It's like the difference between being a chess master and advocating that all school curricula be replaced with chess lessons.
(Contrariwise, Trump may or may not be the "most militaristic", but even if he is I really don't think he's likely to be the best at war)