The publick is supposed to see an alert soldier in the latest set of new camouflage clothes?

What a well trained combat soldier will immediately recognize , is that this dork is looking 180 degrees away from the muzzle of his weapon.

Real soldiers don’t do that.

However, Dork meterosexual wannabe military fashion models do that.

Rule # 1 The muzzle of your weapon will always follow your eyes!

Rule# 2 There are no exceptions to rule # 1.

Simple, and easy to comprehend isn’t it?

Perhaps this ” soldier ” should take off his ” Cool Breeze ” shades, and get a view of the way things work in the field.

Peace.

The future sucks.

* USMC attempts to make a single seat (no dual seat F-35B’s are even planned as I understand it — modern sims negate the need) F-35B into the electronic attack/warfare role to replace USMC EA-6B’s (compared to USN EA-18G’s) will prove fruitless and overly ridiculous prices

* USMC F-35B’s cannot replace the USMC F/A-18D FAC(A) role and and it’s two manned crew like the F/A-18F could

* RN F-35B’s operating off a brand new British carrier (down to just one now it appears) with a ski jump will be a waste when they could have bought less expensive/more capable F-35C’s and just installed catapults in their new carrier from the onset

* the last time the DOD went all in on a single airframe (F-4 Phantom) for the USAF, USN, and USMC it went so well that all three broke from the concept as soon as they could and designed and procured the F-15 Eagle, F-14 Tomcat, and F/A-18 Hornet

Dare I say — the Joint Suck Fighter?”

I think we’re not the only ones on the Internet discussing all “positive and” negative aspects of the F-35 : I found these few, but well-informed and well-presented criticisms about the F-35 here on another Web-site and would like to share them with you:

“Things that I do know:

* $135m F-35A’s will not be able to replace 4,400 F-16’s as of present that have been built, not when new F-16E/F’s can still be had for around $50m and come with AESA and a GE F110-132 with 32.5k pounds of thrust

* the F-35A will not be able to replace the A-10 and it’s Gatling gun/turbine engines in the CAS role

* USMC F-35B’s replacing USMC F/A-18C’s operating off of USN CVN’s at higher costs/lower capabilities compared to the USN’s F-35C’s at less cost/greater capabilities will prove fruitless

(Continued)

Guided missiles will also be programmed to make automatic violent evasive maneuvres when they sense a laser’s heat, and the rocket artillery will simply switch from rockets and missiles to hyper-speed missiles, too, to shorten their exposure time. Hyper-speed rockets or missiles are effective even without warheads, explosions and much guidance, just by hitting any armour plate on Earth at Mach 5 + (Swedish hyper-speed rockets even made it to Mach 8 once, during the 80’s – INSIDE the atmosphere!!!) :

This U.S. American “L.O.S.A.T.” anti-tank missile simply destroyed a tank by hitting it at 1.524 meters per second / 5.000 f.p.s. / Mach 4,4 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCmSs6hXWoU

And, once again: How do you intend to use any C.-R.A.M. laser in bad weather…? Quick, it’s raining shells!

It’s exactly because of all these technical challenges that I expect lasers to be used primarily OFFENSIVELY , NOT for any defensive purposes = to be used against every other conceivable target EXCEPT ammunition!

No matter what bed-time stories the Pentagon tells you.

If a tank shoots at another tank at only 5 kilometers range ( = “point blank”), his

1) 1.680 meters per second (5.500 f.p.s.) fast grenade

or

2) 1.900 meters per second (6.234 f.p.s.) fast tungsten sabot

only needs 3 – 5 seconds to fly that distance! (Can you even traverse your laser turret fast enough to intercept that round?)
Plus: You wanna MELT PURE MASSIVE TUNGSTEN (whose melting point of 3.422 °C / 6.192 °F is the second highest of all chemical elements!) in only 3 – 5 seconds, or even vaporize it in flight??????? “I think you’ll need a bigger boat…“
Even regular steel (for “dumb” ammunition) can be made of increasingly heat-resistant (and reflective) alloys!
Lased on from straight ahead, most ammunition is simply too pointed, too elongated, to concentrate the laser light that strikes it (any beam diameter) on just one tiny spot, and spin-stabilized ammunition also distributes a laser ray’s heat over a larger area.

(Continued)

To the poster “Will” :

You wrote: “Ground forces can use them (lasers) as a C-RAM weapon.”

(For those not in the know: C.-R.A.M. means “Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar”)

Artillery and mortar ammunition have much thicker and harder skins than any aircraft or drones in the World, especially at the tip, but their tips also happen to be the part a laser will aim at / hit most of the time… Melting a flying artillery grenade with a laser (its explosive is relatively heat-UNsensitive, although cooking-off can happen, if it’s kept too long in an over-heated barrel) is like lasing through light armour: “It even works out on the battlefield”, but in the meantime you spent all your 9 lives!

And what are you going to do against ammunition fired at point blank?

(Continued)