This will end badly.

So we NATO France and/or the UK NATO attempted a decapitation strike.

What does that leave us with.

Probably increased acts/attempts of terrorism in Europe and the US.  Why would you go after the leader of a country and not use a big enough bomb to get the job done is beyond me.

A wounded (either physically or mentally) man is a sight to behold...especially if that man has the means to strike back at the person(s) that caused him that pain.

The leader of Libya has the means to strike back at the West.  Financially---thru oil---and murderously---thru terrorist organizations that he's backed.

This my friends will end badly.

UPDATE*
A commenter named "me" stated that Belmont Club Blog stated that its being reported that a GBU-28 was found (unexploded) at the site and that indicates that the US dropped the bomb.  My question is this...if our allies requested a bunker buster, do you think that the Pentagon would deny the transfer?  Not bloody likely.  Additionally, I don't know how good journalist are at weapons recognition but I've met many that didn't even know the difference between a magazine and a clip, much less a Mk82 and a GBU-28.

Pic of the day. April 30, 2011.

Bjonar Bolsoy sent me these pics from Lockheed Martin......Enjoy. 

F-35A AF-2 flies over the sea test range off the coast of California on 22 February 2011 on its ninetieth flight. USAF Maj. Scott McLaren is the pilot.

F-35A AF-1 aerial refuels over the Pacific Ocean on a flight from Edwards AFB, California.

AF-1 has logged 178 total flight hours in its first 100 flights.

First flight for second F-35C

Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti was at the controls for the first flight of F-35C CF-2 on 29 April 2011.

Finally! Mainstream US Media is touting my position on Europe!

Joe Anselmo over at ARES is basically repeating my argument when it comes to Europe, NATO and the current weakness shown by both.  This from his article...

Unfortunately, just a month into the campaign, the European-led NATO coalition is showing signs of strain, such as a shortage of precision bombs. These problems are probably more a matter of logistics than money. But they also highlight an inconvenient truth: Europe has been underfunding its defense capabilities for more than a decade.

But wait my friends...it gets worse...

“I think there is a disconnect between the diplomatic ambitions of European countries and their military power,” says Antoine Gelain, leader of the aerospace and defense practice at Candesic, a London-based consultancy. “France and the U.K. still see themselves as the kind of countries that are able to bring law and order to renegade regimes. But the reality is they don’t have the means to do that anymore.”

The worse part of all this is the face that Joe is a business reporter!  He's looking at this from that perspective and as an explanation for why European companies are making a bee line to the US market place.

What he doesn't touch on, and what many don't want to see is this --- Unless Europe/NATO picks up more of the load, this Atlantic partnership is in serious trouble.  The danger doesn't exist between the US and individual countries but more with the European Union and NATO.  The US and UK, Poland, Romania, The Netherlands, Finland etc...will remain strong...but with the alliance...with the umbrella organization?  Not so much.

Anytime, Baby! F-14 Tomcat Sunset

A question for the aviation experts...

I've been playing catch-up on my reading and I keep running into conflicting, confusing and what I believe is misleading information.

Exhibit #1 is this post by Winslow Wheeler from Huffinton Post back in 2009.

If the latest iteration of "beyond visual range" turns out to be yet another chimera, the F-35 will have to operate as a close-in dogfighter, but in that regime it is a disaster. If one accepts every aerodynamic promise Lockheed currently makes for it, the F-35 will be overweight and underpowered. At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)
Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."

The question I have is this...

If bigger wings confer greater agility then why isn't the F-35C more agile than the F-35A.

Yes its a simple question.

But this type of thing has gained traction and is repeated by many...its even a pronouncement that I've seen on a site where the authors claim to be aviation experts and when challenged on any of the claims that they make "insist on comparing  resumes"...the comparison to the F-105 is also a much repeated phrase that I see popping up all over the internet.

So I'm asking the guys that might fly by this blog to give me the real deal...is it that cut and dry or am I being deceived?

Latest F-35 Vids

F-35A Compilation Vid



F-35B Compilation Vid


F-35C Compilation Vid