The Survivability of Men and Women

We use the terms 'Men' and 'women' still in the Tavern  - will these survive - despite the Oz Gummunt changing the terminology on marriage certificates with such obscene haste that one has to think they did it months ago. Nothing happens overnight in Gummunt. We recognise only two genders too, not the vomited list so recently devised and adopted by many organisations, again betoking a sort of insanity.

We do not mind what people wear as long as it covers them up adequately, even blokesses in dungarees or chaps in frocks. But the clothes, even jeans, are not magical and cannot alter your genes.

There was a lively discussion going on when Dfor walked in and added to it, quite handily. Several customers had been musing on the relative merits of men and women and their gravitation toward one occupation or another. They do, you know. And that had moved to their ability to simply survive if pretty well everything but fresh air and sunshine was taken away from them.

Dfor was pretty sure that the women would not get by. Nomen Nescio had the evidence.

how dumb do feminists need to be?

Recently I came across yet another feminist spouting the line that if only all men could be removed from the planet women would be able to live in a safe peaceful Garden of Eden.

Apparently it had never occurred to this woman that a world free of men might not be so wonderful. 

For instance, there would be no electricity. No running water. No internet. No telephones. All these things have been built and are maintained by men. There would be no fire brigade so if your house caught fire you could be in trouble. There would be nobody to collect the rubbish.

 http://anotherpoliticallyincorrectblog.blogspot.com.au/2017/12/how-dumb-do-feminists-need-to-be.html

In fact women probably wouldn’t live long enough to have to worry about most of the consequences because within a few days there would be no food in the stores. Farming, fishing and all forms of food production are done by men. Of course even if there was food it wouldn’t help since there’d be nobody to drive the trucks to deliver the food to the stores.

This is all pretty obvious. Civilisation was created by men and it’s men who keep it running. And women are absolutely dependent on civilisation. I don’t believe any woman in the 1950s (or any earlier period in history) would have been dumb enough to think that women could survive more than a few days in a world without men. 

But today our universities are full of women who believe such nonsense. 

They really are completely unaware of how the world actually works.

Of course if you’re a feminist today such mind-boggling ignorance is not enough. You also have to believe that a man wearing a frock is just as much of a woman as any actual woman, and is entitled to all the privileges that go along with being female.

Is it stupidity or craziness? Like I said earlier, it’s difficult to tell. Maybe a bit of both.

I suspect that most older feminists don’t believe this kind of silliness. They believe some of it, but not all of it. At the very least, they have some serious doubts about the magical power of a frock to transform a man into a woman.

One has to wonder why any man who believes feminist cant and mendacity would ever want to be a woman. Are women not oppressed by the evil patriarchy?  Have they not had all rights stripped from them? Why would a chap wish to join such a deprived majority? 

Deluded Feminist Harpy

Ahh, but, some will say with a knowing touch to the side of the nose that such chaps are plain stupid. Not even fancy stupid. No decorative value at all, and at least a pretty feminist girl serves that function.

Those that think they are pretty are often deluded though. 

And were such ladies, girls, women, binaries, lesbians, bi or whatnots left to their own devices, decorative is just what we get, even if that includes useless nick-nacks.  

As Nomen showed. He takes the diametrically opposite tack to the feminists. You will all already know that I hold no brief for 'patriarchy' as it is an invented word, pushed by feminists, to denigrate men. Nomen turns it back upon them, as though it were real.

THIS ACCIDENTAL EXPERIMENT SHOWS THE SUPERIORITY OF PATRIARCHY

Patriarchy has been extremely successful, despite its recent vilification. Most cultures worldwide are patriarchal – to find examples of successful matriarchal societies you either have to turn to ancient history, remote outskirts of the world or feminist fiction. 

However, this hasn’t stopped the feminist collective from queefing out books and even a hashtag hailing the end of patriarchy in a textbook example of incestuous amplification.

 http://www.returnofkings.com/32053/this-accidental-experiment-shows-the-superiority-of-patriarchy

What patriarchy, after its apparent downfall, will be replaced with remains to be seen. Hamsterizations aside, there is surprisingly little data available about what life would be like in a society made up of only men or only women. 

An enterprising social scientist might want to perform an experiment where groups of men and groups of women are left to their own devices, having to work together to survive against the elements and build a civilization from scratch. However, this scientist would have a very hard time convincing ethical review boards that the inevitable suffering of his participants would weight up against the value of the data.

Luckily, reality television is not bound by ethical constraints 

.....and once in a while, in its never ending quest for viewer ratings, reality TV accidentally performs a very interesting experiment that social scientists would never be allowed to do.

Quite a few years ago, I had the pleasure of watching the Dutch version of Survivor (Expeditie Robinson) with my feminist roommate. That particular season would have two islands, one populated by men and one populated by women. 

My roommate had been promoting that particular series to me and the other students in the house for weeks because it would show us, according to her, what a society run by women – free from the evils of patriarchy – would be like.

And it did. 

Oh it did.

Here is what happened: initially both groups were dropped on their respective islands, given some supplies to get started and left to fend for themselves. 

In both groups there was some initial squabbling as people tried to figure out a local hierarchy. The men pretty much did whatever they felt was necessary – there was no leader giving orders. 

Men who felt like hunting, foraging or fishing did so. Another guy decided he was fed up with sitting on sand and started making benches. Others built a hut that gradually grew and evolved. Another guy cooked every night. Within days a neat little civilization was thriving, each day being slightly more prosperous than the previous one.

The women settled into a routine as well. The hung up a clothesline to dry their towels, then proceeded to sunbathe and squabble. Because unlike men, women were unable to do anything without consensus of the whole group. 

And because it was a group of at least a dozen women, consensus was never reached. 

During the next few episodes, the women ate all their initial supplies, got drenched by tropical storms several times, were eaten alive by sand fleas and were generally miserable. The men on the other hand, were quite content. There were disagreements of course, but they were generally resolved.

Eventually, the people running the program decided something had to change.  

In order to help the women out, three men would be selected to go to their island. In return, three women would take their place at the men’s island. The look on my feminist roommates face during this episode was priceless.

Initially, the three men selected for the women’s island were ecstatic, for obvious reason. But then they arrived at the island and were greeted by the women.

‘Where is your hut?’, they asked.

‘We have no hut’

‘Where are your supplies?’ they asked, dismayed

‘We ate all the rice’

And so on. The three men ended up working like dogs, using all the skills developed by trial and error in their first few weeks – building a hut, fish, trying to get the women to forage. 

The women continued to bitch and sunbathe. 

The three women who were sent to the men’s island were delighted – food, shelter and plenty of male attention was freely available. They too continued to sunbathe.

And that my friends, is what patriarchy is. My former roommate, unsurprisingly, is no longer a feminist.

Now this might all be a fluke, a white raven, an exceptional case not representative of society as whole. But that particular season of Dutch Survivor is not unique. CBS broadcast several Survivor seasons in the US, where men and women started off in separate groups. In most cases (the Amazon and One World), the result was the same. 

The men quickly got their act together, getting access to food, fire and shelter while the women spent a lot of time and energy on petty little squabbles, eating their meager supplies, getting drenched in storms and generally being pathetic. 

The opposite situation, where men didn’t get their act together while women quickly built a functional micro society, has not yet been observed outside of feminist fiction, and it probably never will.

Well, I had pints to pull and tables to wipe down. 

I gave out pints all round but resolutely refused to be drawn.

Hahaha.

Men make a house: women make a home.

They both are better holding hands than arm (or head) wrestling.

Buy your gal a drink and let her massage your shoulders. 

Pax

Orcas Take the (fish)Cake

One hears some fishy tales in the Tavern but this one takes the cake. We get the occasional pod of Orcas in the waters near my cave mouth but they are more usually found elsewhere. Like Alaska, for instance. And it was from there that we heard of some smart fishy goings on. Actually Orcas aren't 'fish' but a member of the dolphin family - and just as smart it seems.

Christian Cotroneo  stopped by and regaled us with the tale.

Killer whales are hunting fishing boats like prey

There's new kind of pirate plying the waters off the coast of Alaska.

 https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/killer-whales-attack-fishing-boats-alaska

Fishing boats are coming under attack by an unlikely band of marauders bent on stealing their cargo.

Killer whales have reportedly been zeroing in on boats from the Gulf of Alaska to Aleutian Island to the Bering Sea — sometimes trailing them for days on end. 

And when those nets are teeming with the day’s catch, they make their move, sawing through twine and feasting on the cargo.

 It happens elsewhere too, mind you, and with smaller boats too. We just don't often get to hear of it here.

In a letter to North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, fisherman Robert Hanson described a particularly precarious encounter, as reported in the Alaska Dispatch News.

Closer to us here we saw a New Zealander getting quite terse and using ripe terms for the thieving big orcas.

The seasoned captain noted that he lost / spent 4,000 gallons of gas trying to outrun a pod of whales last month — even drifting silently for 18 hours — before losing 12,000 pounds to his net-gnawing pursuers.

Age-old method

And the whales, which can grow up to 11 tons and race at speeds of 30 miles per hour, don’t respond to noisemakers either. 

In fact, the electronic horns designed to disperse them have become siren calls … for supper.

“It became a dinner bell,” 

fishing boat operator Paul Clampitt told the National Post.

Killer whales, famed for their complex and patient hunting techniques, follow the beleaguered boats, encircling and harassing the vessel, much like a "motorcycle gang," fisherman John McHenry told the newspaper.

"You’d see two of them show up, and that’s the end of the trip. 

Pretty soon all 40 of them would be around you," 

he said.

The shakedowns have taken a heavy toll on the Alaskan fishing industry, with a University of Alaska study suggesting that commercial anglers lose as much as $1,000 per day to the pirating pods.

So what’s driving whales to a life of plunder and pillage? It’s possible they were inspired by sperm whales — behemoths that have been vexing fishing boats for decades.

The biggest factor, however, may not be a dearth of fish in the ocean, but rather an abundance of intelligence on the whale’s part.

Quite simply, they’re studying patterns in their environment.

As John Moran, a biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explained to the Alaska Dispatch News, they’re adapting — and getting richly rewarded for it.

The orcas, he noted, distinguish between types of boats, even recognizing the drone of a hydraulic system, as it lowers nets into the water.

They follow tourist boats too, presumably hoping someone falls overboard.

Who can resist the temptation for a little fast food? Especially when it’s being dangled, literally, in front of their noses.

All sounds very fishy to me, but I gave Christian a pint anyway.

Pax 

The Investigator

If Jerusalem, according to Trump, is the Capital  city of Israel, then Hobart is the Capital city of Antarctica and Southern Ocean.  Our ice-breakers and research vessels, based here in this small but beautifully put together little Isle, are second to none and at the top of the pinnacle of excellence is the Investigator. Here she is, sitting calmly just off the mouth of my cave this morning, calibrating its gizmos.

When it is in port I can see it at wharf and I watch it come and go on its voyages. often I see the Aurora Australis too as it comes and goes; a very agile and 'firm' ice-breaker that the scientists in Antarctica, from many nations and nationalities, depend upon.

But it is the Investigator that always attracts the eye of visitors.

RV Investigator is our state-of-the-art marine research vessel, supporting Australia’s atmospheric, oceanographic, biological and geosciences research from the tropical north to the Antarctic ice-edge.

So much of our deep ocean remains a mystery - we know more about the moon than we do about our deepest oceans.

https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Facilities/Marine-National-Facility/RV-Investigator

The Marine National Facility's research vessel Investigator enables researchers to head out into the Indian, Pacific and Southern Oceans to:
• undertake deep sea oceanography
• map and study the geology of Australia's marine estate to underpin resource exploration
• monitor and better understand our fisheries
• learn more about our weather patterns and large ocean processes.

It comes from a long history.

Ye Olde Investigator.

In May 2009, the Australian Government allocated $120 million for a new ocean-going research vessel to replace the 66-metre Southern Surveyor.

It was designed, built and commissioned through the Future Research Vessel Project, an initiative of the Australian Government under the Super Science Initiative and financed from the Education Investment Fund.

Given the name RV Investigator after a national naming competition, the 93.9 metre ship is capable of spending up to 300 days a year at sea, supporting activities across a range of disciplines in oceanographic, geological, biological and atmospheric.

Each voyage is able to accommodate up to 40 scientists and support staff, and can go to sea for up to 60 days at a time and cover 10 000 nautical miles.

The ship is operated by the Marine National Facility on behalf of the nation, and its operation is guided by an independent steering committee. The ship is funded by the Australian Government to support voyages by Australian scientists and their overseas collaborators.

Have a look around it.

Australia has one of the world’s largest marine territories, much of which remains unexplored, with only one blue-water research vessel available to our marine research community.

Marine research is vital to the sustainable development and management of the ocean, and to understanding its influence in the region and around the world.

The 94-metre Investigator has been built to specifically meet the needs of Australian marine scientists to undertake geoscience, atmospheric, biological and oceanographic research.

Examples of some of its state-of-the-art features and capabilities include:
• Mapping the sea floor at any depth. Australia has the third largest ocean territory in the world, but only 25 per cent of Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) has been mapped with multibeam. Much of our deep ocean remains unexplored and unknown.

• Studying what marine life lives between 1500 to 3000 metres below the surface to learn more about where fish live, eat and breed in order to better manage our fisheries.
• Collecting data in a 150 kilometre radius around the ship to improve our weather forecasts. It is one of only a handful of vessels globally that has a weather radar on board.
• Capturing water samples as deep as 7000 metres to help understand where ocean currents travel and to monitor changes in deep ocean temperatures. 
The leading edge of ocean research.

Australia’s oceans are estimated to contribute $42 billion annually to our economy, increasing to over $100 billion in ten years. The ship is technically impressive and will open up avenues of discovery both within and across scientific disciplines.


With about $20 million worth of scientific equipment for oceanographic, geological, biological and atmospheric research, the ship will dramatically improve the national marine knowledge.

Meanwhile, the lads and lassies on the  ice will still rely on deliveries of chocolate and tea by the Aurora.

And we shall raise a glass to them 

Don't run your heaters and vehicles too much chaps or the global warmist fanatics will blame me for the ice melting.

Pax

Stealthy Spy: F35 Had Secrets.

It is a bit much when your friends spy on you while saying it is for your own good. Being a sort of aircraft fan I do take some notice of developments and the longer term trends. Our cousins in America are well advanced in building planes, especially fighting planes, and very adept at pushing their own barrows too. This is all too often at the expense of other fine aircraft developed by other allies. 

The 'fifth' generation fighting aircraft, trying hard to become the sixth, are being matched by the Chinese and Russians, and America has convinced (by means fair and perhaps foul) western nations to buy American, and especially their latest F 35. And what a troubled gestation it is being.  It is a very complicated plane and what it can do (promises) is complicated too. But is it up to the job?  

It is not just the engine performance and the stealthiness, but the software that drives its systems has been very difficult to 'write'.  So much so that few know even what is written in. Not only is the aircraft beset by reports of problems, but now some otherwise secret aspects are becoming uncovered. And they are disturbing allies, much to the delight of potential adversaries.

So I listened in the Tavern today as Jamie Seidel and Claire Bickers gave us some news and views. The Norwegians, for example are a bit miffed.

‘Spy’ F-35s send sensitive Norwegian military data back to Lockheed Martin in the United States

Is Australia spending $17 billion for the privilege of being spied upon? Norway has just caught its new aircraft secretly sending sensitive data back to the United States.

THE marketing campaign makes it clear: The F-35 justifies its enormous cost and limited weapons load by being sneaky and enormously well informed.

But its international customers probably didn’t expect this.

 http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/spy-f35s-send-sensitive-norwegian-military-data-back-to-lockheed-martin-in-the-united-states/news-story/12b4fafce6b579448cc8416518063d1f

Norwegian defence officials have caught one of their new $A120 million (less research and development costs) F-35A Lightning II Block 3F stealth jets sending sensitive data back to its US manufacturer — Lockheed Martin. 

Norway is the first non-US user of the F-35 to have a mission-critical software package enabled through the provision of Mission Data Files.

It’s a critical database and software package that is supposed to finally deliver what the advertising videos have been promising for more than a decade: 

‘revolutionary situational awareness’.

But it appears that ‘situational awareness’ cuts both ways.

Turns out the US military megacorp is getting detailed telemetry on everything Norwegian pilots are doing delivered to its Fort Worth, Texas, facility.

Norway has ordered 40 of the jets, with an option for a further 12.

It took delivery of its first three aircraft in November.

It’s already discovered a problem understood by most smartphone users:

“The development from F-16 to F-35 is like comparing an old Nokia 3210 with an iPhone X. As the amount of features increases, data is also increasing and the need to protect it,” Norwegian Defense Ministry consultant Lars Gjemble told ABC Nyheter.

“In a way, it looks like the challenge of what information your iPhone shares with the manufacturers.”

Put simply, the manufacturer is tracking and assessing the habits of Norwegian pilots.

While privacy is a concern when it comes to personal internet and smartphone use, it’s becomes a whole different matter when applied to the military.

“Due to national considerations, there is a need for a filter where the user nations can exclude sensitive data from the data stream that is shared by the system with the manufacturer Lockheed Martin,” Gjemble told ABC Nyheter.

At the heart of the problem is the F-35’s artificial intelligence dubbed ALIS: it is responsible for logging performance data, as well as monitoring and optimising the aircraft’s sophisticated equipment.

To do so it ‘phones home’ to Texas.

Norway says it has become impatient with continued delays in the promised provision of a data “filter” by Lockheed Martin. 

So it’s started its own project to find ways to block its new F-35s from reporting back to their former US masters.

It’s also worried that it won’t be able to optimise — or protect — the extremely sensitive Mission Data Files. These data packs optimise aircraft performance under different conditions, as well as provide a database of regional challenges and conditions.

Again, Norway wants Lockheed Martin out of the loop.

“Norway has entered into a partnership with Italy to jointly finance the procurement and operation of a laboratory where we can enter nationally sensitive data, as we currently do on F-16,” Gjemble said.

Australia took delivery of its first two F-35s earlier this year. It has about 70 of the aircraft - which represent the world’s most expensive conventional weapons program ever - on order.

Hmmmmm. It seems no-one was told of this small feature.  It begs the question of what else all the complex software does. 

Many countries join Norway on the customer list. Australia is one. We here in Oz have had several American aircraft 'sold' to us, even causing us to cancel far better ones. (TSR2 vs F111) and all in the pursuit of 'interoperability'. This is a word a bit like 'tolerance', 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism' in its opaqueness.

Oz, so far has just two, which we like to show off, like new toys found under the tree on Christmas morning. Oz sees it as a new bread-slicing gizmo, but does it burn toast too?

Australia’s F-35A stealth fighters may cost millions to bring up to a fighting standard

OUR new F-35 stealth fighters could right now be flying in South Korea, the defence ministry states, saying our aircraft can’t be compared to their troubled US counterparts.

AUSTRALIA’s two shiny new F-35 Strike Fighters may never go to war. Needing some 160 modifications to make their model combat worthy, the US Air Force is reportedly considering abandoning those already delivered in favour of new purchases.

 http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/australias-f35a-stealth-fighters-may-cost-millions-to-bring-up-to-a-fighting-standard/news-story/7a28b881ff92cc27ed5fd88f2480f512

Touted by manufacturer Lockheed Martin as the most advanced fighting machines ever built, virtually the entire production run of over 100 machines so far has one glaring problem.

They can’t fight.

Australia took delivery of two F-35A Lightning II aircraft amid much fanfare at the Avalon air show in Victoria earlier this year. Several more are in the late stages of construction, due for delivery next year.

Will it be flown by feminist lady pilots of a certain size? 

These are almost exactly the same in their technical specifications to the 108 F-35As delivered so far to the United States Air Force.

But a controversial development and delivery contract process — known as concurrency — has produced an aircraft with software and components that were never fully tested.

The argument was (that) computer simulation could streamline the whole process, eliminating risk, reducing cost and speeding up delivery.

It didn’t.

Now two senior US Pentagon officials responsible for the F-35 program have admitted they are seriously considering abandoning vital upgrades and fixes of those aircraft already delivered.

A major ongoing issue is its software, integrading a wide range of hardware flight, sensor and weapons systems. An upgraded from its Block 2B to 3i version is underway - but neither delivers a fully functional combat aircraft. Nor does the next in the progression, the 3F, due next year.

And the toastiness lever is under here.

Then there are the many hardware issues built into the early production aircraft, many of which US defence auditors say pose serious safety risks.

Australia has at least two F-35s that will likely require many millions being sunk into reconstruction and upgrade before they are fully capable of fighting on the front line.

Or they could be restricted to limited training roles, reducing the number of the incredibly expensive aircraft available for active duty.

Or they could be handed to pilots expected to fly into combat with the software and hardware equivalent of 

one arm tied behind their back.

A spokesman for the Defence Minister has rejected any suggestions Australia’s F35s won’t be combat ready.

“Australia does not possess any F-35A Lightning II Block 2B variants,” he said. “Both of our planes were updated more than a year ago. The Australian F-35 is currently operating a much newer software package, the Block 3i. This is similar to the types of planes operating in South Korean military exercises a few weeks ago.

“The Australian fighters cannot be compared directly to the experiences of the United States Air Force. Australia’s 72 Joint Strike Fighters will be the most potent warfighting planes in the world.”

Bring on Mandy Rice Davies for voice delivery tips. 

But the US Marines F-35B ‘jump jet’ variants being operated in South Korea are also not yet fully operational. Their “Initial Operational Capability (IOC)” status means they are flying under restricted parameters and with limited sensor integration and weapons loads.

And they face the same - if not more - costly hurdles to bring them up to “Full Operational Capability” as their air force F-35A siblings.

In 2015, the US Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Michael Gilmore wrote testing at that time “did not — and could not — demonstrate that the Block 2B F35B is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation, or that it is ready for real-world operational deployments”.

The consequences of that finding have come home to roost.

“From a production perspective, we have literally 150 to 160 modifications that have to occur on some of our tails to get it to a Block 3(F) configuration,” US Vice Admiral Mat Winter, head of the F-35 Joint Program Office, told the Air Force Association’s annual Air, Space and Cyber conference earlier this week.

“Our mods program is almost as exciting and dwarfing our production program.”

Hahahaha. This is a fine attempt at pulling wool over people's eyes. Snatching a pyhrric victory scenario from the jaws of defeat. 

The Pentagon is considering not modifying all 108 F-35As in its possession to the Block 3F standard. While itself far below advertised F-35 capabilities, the 3F version of the aircraft and its operating system will enable it to carry and use a selection of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons.

The reason given: doing so would be very expensive.

It may be cheaper to just buy new ones off the production line.

“We’re looking at a solution space that gives our warfighter options,” Admiral Winter said, while admitting his office was expecting a more “logical, more digestible” delivery schedule — meaning further delays.

Don't you just love the obfuscation. 

US Air Force Chief of Staff David Goldfein also admitted at the Air Force Association conference that there was debate within the Pentagon.

“You’re going to see us continuing to do a business-case analysis of retrofit of these aircraft,” he said earlier this week.

The upshot is dozens of early-delivery US Air Force F-35s are likely to relegated to training duties. They can’t use a worthwhile load of missiles or bombs. Nor can they effectively fire their 20mm cannon. And then there is a swath of yet-to-be-addressed safety issues.

Given those aircraft so far delivered to Australia are essentially the same specification.... 

the Royal Australian Air Force must now either find the money to fix those F-35s it already has — or accept a smaller than expected fighting force than expected.

Exactly how much additional delay these fixes place on the F-35 program is also an issue. The RAAF has already had to buy a handful of F/A-18 Super Hornets to maintain its capabilities while it waits.

This is a re-hash of buying F-4s while waiting for the F-111, for which the  far and away better TSR2 was cancelled. 

It had hoped the F-35A would begin to enter limited service in July 2019, with full operational capability by 2023.

Project Director for F-35 Missions Systems at Australia’s Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG) Stephen McDonald, told Australian Defence Magazine in July he did not see any risk in terms of Australia’s F-35’s capabilities.

The expanded range of weapons needed for Australian initial operational capability had already been tested, he said.

“The 3F software is being tested quite strongly right now,” he told ADM. “That will be delivered in 2018 and we don’t go to IOC until the end of 2020, so we’ve got two years’ float and all systems are go.”

But that was before the senior US F-35 project commanders began casting doubt on the viability of upgrading existing aircraft to the Block 3F standard.

It’s not the first time the defence contract concept of concurrency has failed to deliver.

The predecessor of the F-35, the F-22 Raptor, suffered a similar fate.

Some 30 examples of this ultra-advanced stealth interceptor will never see combat. They’ve been used only as trainers since production ceased a decade ago because they were not delivered up to expected standards.

This leaves just 150 combat-capable F-22s on active USAF service.

And there is considerable confusion over exactly where the F-35 program stands on actual operational capabilities. The US Marine Corps last year accepting its F-35B jump-jet variants as having met initial operational capability requirements — even though only 89 per cent of the necessary software was delivered, leaving several combat systems inoperable.

Full operational capability is only certified after rigorous and independent testing proves a weapon system can be operated and maintained.

But the US Marine Corps’ small fleet of unproven F-35Bs has already been pressed into service in Japan and South Korea.

The fix list for problems is extensive.

Many are potentially fatal.

The Pentagon’s director of operational testing and evaluation reported earlier this year there were 158 “Category 1” software flaws that could cause death or injury.

Some modifications are as simple as updating the applications on a smart phone. Others need hardware upgrades. Yet more may require extensive rebuilding, such as addressing the vulnerability of its rear engine compartment and tail structure, fixing the pilot’s oxygen supply and making the jet’s ejection seat safe. 

And the aircraft isn’t allowed to fly anywhere near lightning.

Eight aircraft are currently being assembled as the RAAF’s next batch of F-35s. They’re due for delivery next year.

Exactly how many of the above problems relate to these airframes is unclear.

 Fighting aircraft, it seems, are getting too complex to even build, let alone win on anything but a financial battlespace.

PROJECT DELAYS

Lockheed Martin and the USAF made much fanfare about the release of its Block 3 software update earlier this month. But analysts say this ended up being just an interim patch (3i) — not the full 3F version promised.

Lockheed Martin has since admitted it has again pushed back the update’s release: “We are well positioned to complete air vehicle full 3F and mission systems software development by the end of 2017,” a statement reads.

But a US Government Accountability Office report says the delivery date is more likely to be May next year, and warns no further orders for the aircraft should be placed until independent testing is completed.

Lockheed Martin ran 46 F-35s off the production lines in 2016. In 2018, it is expected to be in full-swing delivering 130 machines each year. About 900 are due to be delivered over the next five years.

Exactly how much they really cost is anyone’s guess.

A defence policy investigator at the Project on Government Oversight recently summed up the confusion and controversy surrounding the F-35 project: ‘Price tag is the only thing stealthy about the F-35.”

Australia reportedly took delivery of its first two F-35As for $US94.6 ($A119.5) million each.

Lockheed Martin is boasting it has since reduced the per-aircraft procurement cost of an F-35A to $US85 ($A107.4) million. This may be why the USAF is considering dumping its non-functional examples in favour of fresh copies.

But the price tag does not include the incredible research and development component of the cost — nor the long list of updates, spare parts and man-hours needed to make each one operational.

But wait ! There's less. There are no free steak knives either. 

Australia ordered its first 14 F-35As in November 2009. A second batch was ordered in April 2014 — this time for 58 aircraft. An order for a potential final tranche of 28 is yet to be made.

Meanwhile the Russians are wowing everyone with their superdooper  Su 35 and the Su 57. 

Not that they are not without problems of their own.

For the politicians it is a great way to spend lots and lots of taxpayers' money so that budget deficits blow out and taxes have to be raised. 

Ahhh well, It won't be long now.

Meanwhile the drinks in the Tavern are free, so down the hatch and refill your glasses.

Pax

Australia Under the Gun

All it will take is a Double-Tap to put Oz out of its misery and the guns are ready. We need some courageous people to turn the guns around. What a dreadful November it has been. We are riven with dangers here and our civil world, our society, our civilisation is almost ready to be taken down by external and internal enemies. If the externals were not bad enough with the Islamic threat that shows itself daily - although for the moment contained - and mad dwarfish Kims in North Korea ready to unleash weapons not seen in 70 odd years, we have an even more destructive internal threat. 

Our Politicians. 

Australia is a Christian country, or rather it was until the 60's when the secularist rot set in. We had all the institutions of law, education, parliament, reigion inherited along with our British heritage, but were were not immune to the swinging sixties, nor to feminism, marxism and foreign influence.  We fought wars on the good-guys side. The 'Family' was strong and proud, pleasing and gave structural foundation.  Many of our politicians were honorable men. We welcomed peoples from all over the world: those who wanted to live with and adopt our ways  - - and unfortunately the vanguard of a  multiculti, feminist, marxist fifth column that now inhabits our corridors of power. 

Those latter people hate everything Oz stands for and with.

And now it is coming to a head. Rod Dreher had his eye on Oz from the other side of the Pacific, and especially on the recent increase in monastic response. In part he expressed some gloom.

The Benedict Option In Oz

The Benedict Option won’t work in Australia and it soon won’t work in other Western countries because even the existence of separate Christian communities is anathema—if we build monasteries, they will attack those too. As a whole, Bird agrees with Dreher about the state of the West—the future looks bleak and culture continues to spiral out of control.

Nothing is more needful today than the survival of Christian culture, because in recent generations this culture has become dangerously thin. 

 http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-benedict-option-in-oz/

At this moment in the Church’s history in this country (and in the West more generally) it is less urgent to convince the alternative culture in which we live of the truth of Christ than it is for the Church to tell itself its own story and to nurture its own life, the culture of the city of God, the Christian republic. 

This is not going to happen without a rebirth of moral and spiritual discipline and a resolute effort on the part of Christians to comprehend and to defend the remnants of Christian culture.

In my book, I cite research showing that Christianity in the United States is, in fact, dangerously thin — even among Evangelicals. Surely it is the same or worse in Australia — and surely Michael Bird recognizes this. Christians cannot hope to change Australia, America, or anywhere else if they are first not transformed in real ways by grace. This is the greatest challenge facing the churches today — even more urgent than the fact that we are living in an increasingly anti-Christian world.

I applaude the Benedict Option, m'self and see it as a way to regenerate the Faith. 

Rarely do we have referendums, being a once democratic people. But a recent one divided the nation even further and gave us a good shove even faster down the slippery slope. 

And it was pushed along by our political class who 'promised' there would be no repercussions. There would be no adverse consequences for society.

They lied.

The Religious leaders are up in arms. Well wagging fingers. It will take much firmer action, and individual religious people, Rev'd and Lay, are gearing up. First the Bishops:

An open letter from religious leaders was signed by the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies; the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher; the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart, Julian Porteous; the Maronite Bishop of Australia, Antoine-Charbel Tarabay; the President of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church of Australia, Jorge Munoz and the Moderator-General of the Presbyterian Church of Australia, John P Wilson.

Other signatories included the National President of Australian Christian Churches, Wayne Alcorn; the National Ministries Director of Australian Baptist Ministers, Keith Jobberns; the National Leader of the Apostolic Church Australia, Wayne Swift; the Senior Minister of the Life Ministry Centre, Graham Nelson and the National Chair of the Assembly of Confessing Congregations within the Uniting Church in Australia, Hedley Fihaki.


The Primate of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, Archbishop Stylianos also lent his name to the letter along with the Senior Priest for the Coptic Orthodox Church in NSW, Tadros El-Bakhoumi and the Executive Assistant to Bishop Suriel of the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Melbourne.

Joe Kelly told us what they said:

Church heads pen open letter over same-sex marriage bill fears

The heads of Australia’s churches have written an open letter to both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten sounding the alarm on the lack of religious freedoms included in a bill to legalise same sex marriage.

The letter, sent today, was signed by 14 of the most senior Church leaders in the country and appealed to both leaders to make good on their undertakings during the postal survey to uphold religious freedoms.

 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/church-heads-pen-open-letter-over-samesex-marriage-bill-fears/news-story/3633254618e2a0528889a1ed23fd15c8?nk=1dc4d9f3f2a05effc85fce79fb2efc8a-1512120002

The religious leaders warn that the Senate had “voted against amendments that aim to reasonably accommodate these matters” and argue the marriage bill due to debated in the House of Representatives next week does not adequately address freedoms of conscience, belief and religion.

“It is our view that the amendments to the bill proposed by Senators Paterson and Fawcett in the Senate on November 28 2017 provide balanced and reasonable measures that respond to such concerns,” they say.

South Australian Liberal Senator David Fawcett and his Victorian Senate colleague, James Paterson, unsuccessfully moved five amendments in the Senate this week to better protect faith-based charities, preserve parental rights and shield individuals from being targeted for continuing to uphold traditional marriage.

The amendments were defeated on the floor of the Senate, with the 14 religious leaders today warning the legalisation of same sex marriage will force an immediate question as to “whether a charity that holds a traditional view of marriage will retain its charity status at law.”

“A change in a social institution that is as fundamental as that of marriage has wideranging implications for our community,” they say.

“The amendments of Fawcett and Paterson offer a reasonable means to unify our nation by effecting the will of the majority who voted in favour of same sex marriage, while also incorporating the legitimate beliefs of those who are concerned for the protection of freedoms in our community.”

A growing number of government frontbenchers in the lower house have indicated their intention to support some or all of the amendments by Senator Fawcett and Paterson including Treasurer Scott Morrison, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton and Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation, Angus Taylor.

During the postal survey on same sex marriage, Mr Turnbull said he believed in religious freedoms “even more strongly” than he did in same-sex marriage and promised to ensure it was adequately protected in the event of a Yes vote.

Many of his own Coalition MPs believe he has betrayed them 

by not living up to his word, with some deriding the same sex marriage bill proposed by West Australian Senator Dean Smith — and which passed the upper-house on Wednesday — as resembling a Greens/Labor initiative.

The letter from religious leaders urges the government to consider six key points, with the first priority being the right of parents to “ensure the education of their children in accordance with their religious and moral convictions.”

It lists five more points including the right of religious institutions to ensure that their facilities are “used in accordance with their beliefs” and the right of charities to continue to express a view in favour of traditional marriage without losing their charitable status.

On both these points, the religious leaders warn there are no protections in the Smith bill. It also says the “internationally recognised rights of religious institutions to establish and maintain faith-based charities in accordance with their convictions is not assured.”

It also canvasses two more priority areas for further consideration including the rights of religious institutions to continue to “express their beliefs” in a way that respectfully engages with the wider community.

Lastly, it warns the Smith bill only provides “transitional rights for existing celebrants, who are not ministers of religion, to act in accordance with their genuinely held religious or conscientious convictions.”

“We believe new celebrants should also be able to apply to be a traditional marriage celebrant into the future.”

The Bishops are mild men. They are kind men. They are eyes-wide-shut men.  The politicians do not care what they ask for. They are not going to pay them anymore attention than they have the 40% of voters who said 'NO'.

Much firmer action is needed. 

My own view, for what it is worth is that all Religious should stop using the word - Marriage ' as it has become debased. They should all refuse to act as marriage celebrants under the secular Act.  They should continue to marry men and women in the Eyes of God, but not register them. 

Catholic Priests and Bishops should continue to conduct ceremonies of Holy Matrimony.

And Holy Matrimony, the Sacrement, is what it should henceforth be called. Only. Other denominations could do the same using their own nomenclature.

But none should be 'marriage celebrants' as defined in the ungodly law of the land. 

One fellow of this locale stepped up: Campbell Markham. Fine fellow. He has written a letter too, yet to be sent.

Resignation from the Marriage Act

I will mail this letter to the Attorney General on the day that the Governor General signs into law the redefinition of marriage.

Dear Senator Brandis,

Today, with profound sadness, as the Governor General signs into law the redefinition of the institution of marriage in the Commonwealth Marriage Act, I resign my status as a Minister of Religion registered under the Act, and relinquish my Celebrant’s Number, T2816.

I do not think he needs to relinquish his Ministry, despite it being a non-Catholic one.  

I thereby revoke my right to conduct weddings as a recognised agent of the Act, and sever any other official connection to it.

I resign for three reasons:

1)  The “Commonwealth Marriage Act” is from today no longer concerned with marriage: 

...with the exclusive, lifelong union of one man and one woman, freely entered into.  Although the novel Act retains the word “marriage,” it now uses this word to refer to something very different to marriage, to something in fact repugnant to the nature and purposes of marriage.

Marriage brings together the two different and complementary sexes of humanity, and the two incomplete parts of the human reproductive system.  The novel Act no longer recognises the unique importance of this union, but instead obfuscates and undermines it by applying the word “marriage” to the union of any two adults.

And marriage binds together and protects a man and a woman in sexual relationship, and the children that are very often born out of such a relationship.    

The novel Act does not do this.  

On the contrary, it legitimises the removal of children from their natural parents.

2)  The Sacred Scriptures clearly delineate what sexual activity God has determined to be right and wrong.  

Sexual intercourse was given by the Creator to one man and one woman joined in marriage.  Fornication, adultery, prostitution, incest, and homosexual practice is forbidden as a misuse of our reproductive organs and sexual desires.

The novel Act, by contrast, places homosexual acts, forbidden by God, on a moral level with male-female married sexual intercourse.  

3)  The novel Act will be a root and tool of injustice.  

It is not just for adults to unnecessarily give up their responsibility to love and raise the children that they conceive.  In fact it is manifestly cruel to abandon one’s offspring in this way.  The novel “Marriage Act” legitimises and institutionalises this injustice.   

Nor is it just to unnecessarily sever a child from their biological heritage: from their natural family tree of parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins.  The novel Act legitimises this injustice.   

And it is not just to unnecessarily remove a child from the protection, love, and daily care of the mother and father who conceived and bore them.  

In better days our nation stood united against this kind of injustice, inflicted upon the children of the Stolen Generation, and the children of forced adoptions.  The novel Act, rather than protecting children against this, actually institutionalises the destruction of this sacred parent-child bond.   

This is a very effective point, showing just how hypocritical the Politicians and govenment are. 

For these reasons my conscience cannot permit me to remain an authorised celebrant of the novel "Marriage Act."  I cannot give any semblance of legitimacy to something so manifestly immoral and unjust.

My position is now this:  I am sworn as a citizen and a Christian to obey the governing authorities of Australia.  My highest allegiance, however, belongs to Jesus Christ, whom God has made King of kings and Lord of lords by virtue of his public resurrection from the dead, attested by scores of eye-witnesses.  Where the laws of Australia contradict the laws of King Jesus then I must choose to obey Him.

These therefore are my intentions:

1)  Though same-sex couples will now “marry” under the novel Act, I will only recognise male-female unions.  

2)  For two thousand years it has been the privilege and duty of Christian pastors to marry those under their care.  My calling and ordination to the pastorate compels me to go on with this duty.  I will continue therefore to marry couples who can be rightly married, whether they are Christian or not, and will submit to whatever civil penalty may be attached to such action. 

But no civil penalty can be applied to a private religious ceremony, not recognised as a civil 'marriage' conducted in the sight God outside of this 'Act'. 

3)  I will support those male-female couples who, for whatever reason, do not want to register their marriage under the novel “Marriage Act.”  I will be ready to marry them in the sight of God and according to his laws, and will submit to whatever civil penalty may be attached to such action. 

4)  Love for my nation compels me to fight for the recovery of marriage: for the recovery of our understanding of what marriage is, for the sacred exclusivity of the marriage bond, for the permanency of marriage, and for the recovery of our responsibilities as husbands and wives for each other and the children that we may bear.  This recovery work will likely take many centuries, there is no time to waste. 

5)  And love for my nation compels me to help ameliorate the damage that the novel Act must cause.  Men and women who have forsaken their children will need to be called to repentance and healing, and will need to recover, if at all possible, their responsibilities to know, love, protect, and provide for their children.  Children who have been unnecessarily removed from their natural parents experience a deep sense of pain, rejection, and loss, and will need to find healing and, wherever possible, reconciliation to their parents.  Those who have given themselves to sexual acts that God has forbidden will also need to find his forgiveness and healing.  

I will point all people to Christ.  He can heal those who have been hurt and broken by the dissolution of marriage.  He loves us, and died to set us free from all the painful and destructive effects of sin.

Today the bright star of marriage sets behind the dank horizon of blind and selfish populism.  

It is a day to weep.  

But it is not a day to despair.  For marriage is obscured, not destroyed.  

In time we will see again what today we despise.  In time God’s gift of marriage will once again arise in the collective heart of our nation, to be respected and enjoyed for the incalculable treasure that it is.

For this bright distant dawn all Christians will work and pray.

A truely brave man. Willing to pay the price.

I can see such a man simply refusing to render unto ceasar - or Bruce and Ahmed, Lily and Shaylene - any 'fines', or kow-tow to any complaints  or bend a knee to any Prime Minister. 

I can see him saying, "NO. I Will Not". 

I can see such a man choosing jail. I hope he inspires bakers and florists, photographers and wedding reception venue owners. 

I know he inspires me.

I hope to see many more fine, courageous and honest men join him until the cry of outrage is heard across the world.

Meanwhile I owe him a drink.

The Catholic Church has a firm means of dealing with Catholic MPs who fail in their duty. Excommunication. I would like to see the newspapers report that an MP was refused Communion at the altar rail. Perhaps the Archbishops should consider that. Perhaps start with Turnbull.

Pax.