Raptor vs Eagle

[Jay Honeck]

Did anyone else catch the History Channel's "Modern Marvels: The F/A 22
Raptor" last night?

What an amazing plane. The Air Force did a head-to-head combat exercise,
one Raptor versus EIGHT F-15 Eagles. The Eagle pilots were all experienced
combat pilots, all with time in the Raptor as well -- so they knew the
tactics, and what to expect.

Didn't matter. One by one, the Raptor shot them ALL down. In post sortie
interviews the F-15 pilots said they never even SAW the Raptor, visually or
with radar. All they knew is that they were suddenly dead.

8 versus 1! And this against arguably the best fighter (and pilots) in the
world.

Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the last
manned fighter aircraft...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article <CKFNe.267211$_o.147173@attbi_s71>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> 8 versus 1! And this against arguably the best fighter (and pilots) in the
> world.

nit: 8 on 2. But yeah, that seemed to be amazing.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Jay Honeck" > said:
>Didn't matter. One by one, the Raptor shot them ALL down. In post sortie
>interviews the F-15 pilots said they never even SAW the Raptor, visually or
>with radar. All they knew is that they were suddenly dead.

A poster on rec.aviation.military was involved with the YF-23 project, and
they had similar experience in their simulations. The enemy just never
saw them before they blew up, even if their wingman blew up first.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing.
Probably a bad thing; most things are bad things.
-- Nile Evil *******

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> 8 versus 1! And this against arguably the best fighter (and pilots)
> in the world.
>
> Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the
> last manned fighter aircraft...)

Impressive, but...

One must remember that it is politically important for military brass to
ensure that their latest toys get good press. Not saying the dogfight
was faked, but I would not be surprised to learn that the exercise was
designed to show the F-22 to maximum advantage.

Congress has been upset about the astounding cost of the Raptor, which
has gone from around $90 million to nearly $200 million per plane. At
one point in 1999, conservative Republicans Jerry Lewis of California
and Bill Young of Florida, and conservative Democrat John Murtha of
Pennsylvania, all key figures on the House Appropriations Committee,
attempted to zero production funding because of skyrocketing costs and
procurement "irregularities." To keep that from happening again, the
Air Force will make every effort to make sure the F-22 is perceived as
the uber-fighter it was touted to be.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> Congress has been upset about the astounding cost of the Raptor, which
> has gone from around $90 million to nearly $200 million per plane.

Congress has this insane ability to be astounded at cost growth, even
cost increases they inflict on the system. :-/

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:54:58 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the last
>manned fighter aircraft...)

well, for me this stuff is more a weapon than a plane. I don't like
weapons. And I don't like armed planes at all, doesn't matter if they are
old or new or historic.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Dan Luke]

"Bob Noel" wrote:
>
>> Congress has been upset about the astounding cost of the Raptor,
>> which
>> has gone from around $90 million to nearly $200 million per plane.
>
> Congress has this insane ability to be astounded at cost growth, even
> cost increases they inflict on the system. :-/

Well, *I'm* astounded at a $200M fighter that was supposed to cost <
$90M (which would have been bad enough), how about you?

From the Project on Government Oversight:

The F-22 fighter development and testing program is dragging behind
schedule and attempts by the Air Force to control costs are failing
miserably, according to a new report by the U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO),
Tactical Aircraft: DOD Needs to Better Inform Congress about
Implication of Continuing F/A-22 Cost Growth, GAO-03-280.

The new report, released late Wednesday by Representative John Tierney,
(D-MA), concludes that the Air Force has been unable to implement the
cost-saving measures it promised and has essentially kept Congress in
the dark about excessive cost overruns.

The report further states:
a.. At the current rate of spending, the Air Force will be able to buy
only 224 F-22s, and not the 339 planned as recently as last fall.


b.. The Department of Defense failed to disclose $1.3 billion in F-22
program cost overruns.


c.. The F-22 program is on target to exceed cost limitations imposed
by Congress.

"The story of the gold-plated F-22 fighter just gets worse with every
financial analysis," said POGO Senior Defense Investigator Eric Miller.
"We hope that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld will finally say 'enough is
enough' and pull the plug on this overpriced and unneeded Cold War
relic."

[Stubby]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Bob Noel" wrote:
>
>>>Congress has been upset about the astounding cost of the Raptor,
>>>which
>>>has gone from around $90 million to nearly $200 million per plane.
>>
>>Congress has this insane ability to be astounded at cost growth, even
>>cost increases they inflict on the system. :-/
>
>
> Well, *I'm* astounded at a $200M fighter that was supposed to cost <
> $90M (which would have been bad enough), how about you?
>
> From the Project on Government Oversight:
>
> The F-22 fighter development and testing program is dragging behind
> schedule and attempts by the Air Force to control costs are failing
> miserably, according to a new report by the U.S. General Accounting
> Office (GAO),
> Tactical Aircraft: DOD Needs to Better Inform Congress about
> Implication of Continuing F/A-22 Cost Growth, GAO-03-280.
>
> The new report, released late Wednesday by Representative John Tierney,
> (D-MA), concludes that the Air Force has been unable to implement the
> cost-saving measures it promised and has essentially kept Congress in
> the dark about excessive cost overruns.
>
> The report further states:
> a.. At the current rate of spending, the Air Force will be able to buy
> only 224 F-22s, and not the 339 planned as recently as last fall.
>
>
> b.. The Department of Defense failed to disclose $1.3 billion in F-22
> program cost overruns.
>
>
> c.. The F-22 program is on target to exceed cost limitations imposed
> by Congress.
>
> "The story of the gold-plated F-22 fighter just gets worse with every
> financial analysis," said POGO Senior Defense Investigator Eric Miller.
> "We hope that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld will finally say 'enough is
> enough' and pull the plug on this overpriced and unneeded Cold War
> relic."

Just raise taxes. No problem. We're used to in MA where the Big Dig
went from $4B to $14.6B and continues to rise.

[Stubby]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Did anyone else catch the History Channel's "Modern Marvels: The F/A 22
> Raptor" last night?
>
> What an amazing plane. The Air Force did a head-to-head combat exercise,
> one Raptor versus EIGHT F-15 Eagles. The Eagle pilots were all experienced
> combat pilots, all with time in the Raptor as well -- so they knew the
> tactics, and what to expect.
>
> Didn't matter. One by one, the Raptor shot them ALL down. In post sortie
> interviews the F-15 pilots said they never even SAW the Raptor, visually or
> with radar. All they knew is that they were suddenly dead.
>
> 8 versus 1! And this against arguably the best fighter (and pilots) in the
> world.
>
> Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the last
> manned fighter aircraft...)

I still don't get it. From what I've read the last real dog fight was
in Korea. Air-to-Air attacks today involve firing at a dot on a screen
with the actual target being way far away, like a hundred miles. It is
the electronics that lets this happen and that is independent of the
airframe and missiles. Of course, even if it is useless, I would love
to fly one!

[Dan Luke]

"Stubby" wrote:

> I still don't get it. From what I've read the last real dog fight was
> in Korea.

Then you haven't read anything on the subject published in the last few
decades.

> Air-to-Air attacks today involve firing at a dot on a screen with the
> actual target being way far away, like a hundred miles. It is the
> electronics that lets this happen and that is independent of the
> airframe and missiles.

Electronics by themselves have yet to win an air-to-air combat, as far
as I know.

> Of course, even if it is useless, I would love to fly one!

It's not useless, just ridiculously expensive.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> > 8 versus 1! And this against arguably the best fighter (and pilots) in the
> > world.
>
> nit: 8 on 2. But yeah, that seemed to be amazing.

Well, that was kind of a weird thing about the show. I heard them say
it BOTH ways (once it was 8 on 1; then I thought I heard 8 on 2)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Stubby > said:
>I still don't get it. From what I've read the last real dog fight was
>in Korea. Air-to-Air attacks today involve firing at a dot on a screen

Don't tell Randy Cunningham that.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Windows, another fine product from the folks who gave us edlin.

[Viperdoc]

I suspect the "superiority" is largely a function of better radar- the
ability to track more targets at the same time or from a greater distance.
Most of these shots were probably beyond visual range AMRAAM launches, not
1v1 dogfighting.

On the other hand, if they merged, it might be a lot different fight.

[gregg]

Dan Luke wrote:

>
> "Bob Noel" wrote:
>>
>>> Congress has been upset about the astounding cost of the Raptor,
>>> which
>>> has gone from around $90 million to nearly $200 million per plane.
>>
>> Congress has this insane ability to be astounded at cost growth, even
>> cost increases they inflict on the system. :-/
>
> Well, *I'm* astounded at a $200M fighter that was supposed to cost <
> $90M (which would have been bad enough), how about you?
>
> From the Project on Government Oversight:
>
> The F-22 fighter development and testing program is dragging behind
> schedule and attempts by the Air Force to control costs are failing
> miserably, according to a new report by the U.S. General Accounting
> Office (GAO),
> Tactical Aircraft: DOD Needs to Better Inform Congress about
> Implication of Continuing F/A-22 Cost Growth, GAO-03-280.
>
> The new report, released late Wednesday by Representative John Tierney,
> (D-MA), concludes that the Air Force has been unable to implement the
> cost-saving measures it promised and has essentially kept Congress in
> the dark about excessive cost overruns.
>
> The report further states:
> a.. At the current rate of spending, the Air Force will be able to buy
> only 224 F-22s, and not the 339 planned as recently as last fall.
>
>
> b.. The Department of Defense failed to disclose $1.3 billion in F-22
> program cost overruns.
>
>
> c.. The F-22 program is on target to exceed cost limitations imposed
> by Congress.
>
> "The story of the gold-plated F-22 fighter just gets worse with every
> financial analysis," said POGO Senior Defense Investigator Eric Miller.
> "We hope that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld will finally say 'enough is
> enough' and pull the plug on this overpriced and unneeded Cold War
> relic."


History repeats itself.

In the late 60's early 70's the "Fighter Mafia" and others showed how the
numbers of planes the USAF could buy kept going down donw donw from one
conflict to another. They argued that if we continue to gold plate our
fighters we'll end up with 10 solid gold planes.

A good brief analysis (tho not the only point of view) can be found in the
book "The Mind of War".

So anyways (according to the book) at that time the USAF was adding more
and more to the F-15 - gold plating - and that's when others started
pushing for the F-16. The USAF was forced into it because the Sec Def was
on board with the idea. They were told to have a hi-low cost mix so that we
could field a decent number of fighters.

Later on, all the USAF press releases sounded as if Hi/Lo was their idea
all along. Just one of the myths of the era, I suppose.

Same thnig seems to be happening now, with regard to gold plating and fewer
squadrons.

My concern is that we haven't fought a first rate, numerically equal or
superior, quality-equal Air Force in a long long time. Some day I expect
that we will. But when will that be? And will the F-22 be what we want
then? And if the fight is 10-20 years down the road, would it have been
better to field a few F-22's and get to work on the next one?

My pet theory is that the next time we are in a long term all out war with a
first rate power, all the fancy gizmos will be used up within 3 weeks and
we'll be back to bullets, grenades, and bayonets. I may exxaggerate
slightly but you gt my point. We don't have the manufacturing ability to
put out dozens of F-22's every month. And that kind of manufacturing
capability isn't build overnight.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[john smith]

> In a previous article, Stubby > said:
>>I still don't get it. From what I've read the last real dog fight was
>>in Korea. Air-to-Air attacks today involve firing at a dot on a screen

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> Don't tell Randy Cunningham that.

"The only reason the F-18 was built is because components are produced
in 49 of the 50 states." - Randy Cunningham at a lecture given at the
USAF Museum in 1980's.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> > Congress has this insane ability to be astounded at cost growth, even
> > cost increases they inflict on the system. :-/
>
> Well, *I'm* astounded at a $200M fighter that was supposed to cost <
> $90M (which would have been bad enough), how about you?

The point was that it is disingenuous for Congress to be surprised
at cost growth. Congress itself causes cost growth through funding
profiles that are idiotic for both development and production, through
reduction in total production numbers, and the acceptance of unrealistic
initial cost estimates. If you want to be even more astounded, check
out the federal acquisition regulations. An adeversary would be severely
challenged to make our acquisition system less efficient and more wasteful
than it is currently.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Dan Luke]

"Bob Noel" wrote:

> The point was that it is disingenuous for Congress to be surprised
> at cost growth. Congress itself causes cost growth through funding
> profiles that are idiotic for both development and production, through
> reduction in total production numbers,

The reductions in total production numbers for the F-22 came from the
Air Force's attempting to keep total project cost below ever-advancing
limits. They started out at 750 airplanes; it's less than half that
now.

> and the acceptance of unrealistic initial cost estimates.

No question that many absurd weapons programs get farther than the
should. There appears to be no accountability for Defense Dept.
"salesmen" who tout these systems to Congress at bait-and-switch prices.

Accountability for congressmen who keep these balls of money rolling is
in the hands of the voters, so we ultimately have ourselves to blame.
Of course, many people stay in congress precisely because they are able
to keep the defense pork flowing to their states and districts.

> If you want to be even more astounded, check
> out the federal acquisition regulations. An adeversary would be
> severely
> challenged to make our acquisition system less efficient and more
> wasteful
> than it is currently.

I've done many contracts administered by the Navy and the Corps of
Engineers. Believe me, I understand the incredible ways they can find
to make everything more expensive and difficult.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[gregg]

john smith wrote:

>> In a previous article, Stubby >
>> said:
>>>I still don't get it. From what I've read the last real dog fight was
>>>in Korea. Air-to-Air attacks today involve firing at a dot on a screen
>
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> Don't tell Randy Cunningham that.
>
> "The only reason the F-18 was built is because components are produced
> in 49 of the 50 states." - Randy Cunningham at a lecture given at the
> USAF Museum in 1980's.

One wonders what his opinion is as to the reason the F-16 was built.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Jay Honeck]

> > "The only reason the F-18 was built is because components are produced
> > in 49 of the 50 states." - Randy Cunningham at a lecture given at the
> > USAF Museum in 1980's.
>
> One wonders what his opinion is as to the reason the F-16 was built.

Actually, one of the graphics shown in the History Channel's show
depicted the number of states contributing components to the Raptor.

It, too, has parts originating from almost every state, thus assuring
that each senator and representative has a vested interest in the
construction of this awesome machine.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Nathan Young]

On 20 Aug 2005 10:53:29 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>
>> > 8 versus 1! And this against arguably the best fighter (and pilots) in the
>> > world.
>>
>> nit: 8 on 2. But yeah, that seemed to be amazing.
>
>Well, that was kind of a weird thing about the show. I heard them say
>it BOTH ways (once it was 8 on 1; then I thought I heard 8 on 2)

There were multiple demonstrations. One of them was either 4 or 5 vs
1, and the other 8 vs 2.

[JJS]

> Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the last manned fighter aircraft...)
> --
The most amazing thing was watching the raptor fire missiles while the airplane was rolling very fast. I've never
seen a jet do that. The ability to super cruise and the vectored thrust would make this the best fighter in the
world without all of the electronic wizardry and stealth capability.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[George Patterson]

Stubby wrote:
>
> It is
> the electronics that lets this happen and that is independent of the
> airframe and missiles.

In a nuclear exchange, much of the electronics will be useless at least some of
the time. We seem to be headed in that direction with regard to Korea.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[john smith]

JJS wrote:
> The most amazing thing was watching the raptor fire missiles while the airplane was rolling very fast. I've never
> seen a jet do that. The ability to super cruise and the vectored thrust would make this the best fighter in the
> world without all of the electronic wizardry and stealth capability.

Good against your own is one thing, how does it do against the Mig-29,
Su-31, SAAB-Griffon, Eurofighter, Mirage, etc and foreign pilots?
I want to see that on The History Channel!

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:52:39 -0500, "JJS" <jschneider@remove socks
cebridge.net> wrote:

>The most amazing thing was watching the raptor fire missiles while the airplane was rolling very fast. I've never
>seen a jet do that. The ability to super cruise and the vectored thrust would make this the best fighter in the
>world without all of the electronic wizardry and stealth capability.

and what are you (the USA) going to do with it? you already can have world
domination with the military arsenal you currently have. There is no logic
reason for even more military power.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:

> and what are you (the USA) going to do with it?

Advance/upgrade. Status quo leads to stagnation. Plus, this
aircraft will allow for better survivability of the pilot. I don't
know about you, but I like the idea of the pilot having improved
odds of surviving a mission.

>you already can have world domination with the military arsenal
> you currently have.

World domination isn't the purpose/mssion of the US military.

>There is no logic reason for even more military power.

see above.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 07:29:48 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

>> and what are you (the USA) going to do with it?
>
>Advance/upgrade. Status quo leads to stagnation. Plus, this
>aircraft will allow for better survivability of the pilot. I don't
>know about you, but I like the idea of the pilot having improved
>odds of surviving a mission.


almost nobody else invest this huge pile of money into such new
developments. So you and your pilots will still stay as safe as you are
now.

>>you already can have world domination with the military arsenal
>> you currently have.
>
>World domination isn't the purpose/mssion of the US military.

no, not of your military.

>>There is no logic reason for even more military power.
>
>see above.

my point stays: there is no LOGIC reason. are your F22 (?) pilots falling
out of the sky without any good reason? Or are they losing air combats (too
often)?

IMHO it is useless waste of money. but this is your money, not mine.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Carl Orton]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>> Congress has been upset about the astounding cost of the Raptor, which
>> has gone from around $90 million to nearly $200 million per plane.
>
> Congress has this insane ability to be astounded at cost growth, even
> cost increases they inflict on the system. :-/

Bear in mind it's all about quantities. If you spend a billion, and only one
plane, that one plane is $1Billion. If you build 1,000 of 'em, the cost per
unit goes down. True, the costs have escalated (as have most government
projects) but, shortly after contract award in 1991 (with go-ahead in
October 1991), congress initiated three contract change proposals (CCPs)
before 1996. Each one stretched the contract a bit more. Stretch a contract,
and you add $$$. What are you going to do - fire everyone for awhile then
try to hire them back? Training / retraining is a big chunk of change. As
is starting / stopping subcontractors. If you marginalized a subcontractor
during the initial contract, and you give them a chance to re-bid it as part
of a contract extension, what do you think they're going to do? ;-)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

> Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the
> last manned fighter aircraft...)
>
It absolutely boggles my mind that those that can justify the massive
expenditures on aircraft with absolutely no purpose are at the same time
opposed to supporting NASA.

Neil

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:

> almost nobody else invest this huge pile of money into such new
> developments. So you and your pilots will still stay as safe as you are
> now.

"almost nobody" isn't the same as "nobody". So your conclusion is incorrect.
Also, even if nobody else improved their weapon systems, the fact remains
that the F-22 is more survivable than the F-15. Since you claimed that
there is no logical reason for the F-22, and I presented one of the reasons
for the F-22, your claim is incorrect.

> >>There is no logic reason for even more military power.
> >
> >see above.
>
> my point stays:

if you say so, not.

> there is no LOGIC reason. are your F22 (?) pilots falling
> out of the sky without any good reason? Or are they losing air combats (too
> often)?

You need to think about future threats, not just current ones.

> IMHO it is useless waste of money.

There are useful waste of money? ;-)

> but this is your money, not mine.

Well, you got something right.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Doug Carter]

In article >, Martin Hotze wrote:

> almost nobody else invest this huge pile of money into such new
> developments. So you and your pilots will still stay as safe as you are
> now.

Almost... "Red Chinese Military Buildup Aimed at U.S." One of a few
hundred links: http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/10/27/120722.txt

I suppose the response will be that the peaceful Chinese are just
defending themselves against the U.S. imperialist running dogs :)

[Jay Honeck]

>> Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the
>> last manned fighter aircraft...)
>>
> It absolutely boggles my mind that those that can justify the massive
> expenditures on aircraft with absolutely no purpose are at the same time
> opposed to supporting NASA.

Well, if we're going down *that* road, I must agree with you. The Raptor
is an amazing, awe-inspiring aircraft, and I'm glad it's been built -- but I
would have rather spent the money on a replacement for the Space Shuttle.

Or a Mars landing.

Of course, in 15 years, when China (or a nuclear armed Iran) is invading
someone, I'll be probably be plenty glad we've got the F/A-22.

Lyndon Johnson tried to have both "guns and butter" (Viet Nam and Apollo) --
and started our long, death spiral of deficit spending. Our current awful
deficit can be traced directly to the 1960s (with a few years off in the
booming '90s). Apollo lost out (as did all space exploration) when it
became apparent that more Americans supported the culture of entitlement
than supported the culture of exploration.

Just look at the recently passed transportation bill to see the ultimate
example of government waste and stupidity. Let's hope a future Congress can
do something about the problem -- the guys and gals that are there now have
shown that they clearly have no clue.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[JJS]

and what are you (the USA) going to do with it? you already can have world
> domination with the military arsenal you currently have. There is no logic
> reason for even more military power.

Martin, If world domination was our objective, we could have probably accomplished that when the Soviet Union fell
apart. (We might still be able to do that). I know I will never convince you otherwise, but the typical U.S.
citizen is a decent human being who really does want world peace and wants to co-exist and work alongside other
peoples. There are occurrences where some countries or rulers try to dominate others, such as the recent invasion of
Kuwait by Iraq and a limited engagement is a viable option. We keep hearing that we are a "Superpower" and should be
the world's policeman. Many if not most of us would prefer that other countries handle their own problems
internally. No one that I know personally wants to have to resort to nuclear warfare. To answer your assertions, I
believe that there is very good logic to keep developing weapons for limited engagements. Standing still with
conventional weapon development will get us into a position where we have no other choice but the nuclear route.

To keep this discussion on topic and aviation related:

I know you get tired of having this thrown in your face but I also had a close relative who died in WWII trying to
preserve your countries way of life . After that war did we come in and try and dominate your country? You can read
about him here:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohiia2.htm

scroll down to
*GOTT, DONALD J. (Air Mission)

I have a goal of visiting your country to learn more of it's rich history and people and to visit the area where my
cousin lost his life. Would you be available as a guide to the Hattonville area?

Joe Schneider
8437R



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[gregg]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> > "The only reason the F-18 was built is because components are produced
>> > in 49 of the 50 states." - Randy Cunningham at a lecture given at the
>> > USAF Museum in 1980's.
>>
>> One wonders what his opinion is as to the reason the F-16 was built.
>
> Actually, one of the graphics shown in the History Channel's show
> depicted the number of states contributing components to the Raptor.
>
> It, too, has parts originating from almost every state, thus assuring
> that each senator and representative has a vested interest in the
> construction of this awesome machine.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


Subcontractors, no doubt, selected by the prime contractor for just that
reason.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

> Of course, in 15 years, when China (or a nuclear armed Iran) is
> invading someone, I'll be probably be plenty glad we've got the
> F/A-22.
>
Hmm. That sounds like an unlikely scenario for many reasons, not the least
of which is that in 15 years, China may be building those for us just as
they're building some of Boeing's fleet, now. Seriously, if we haven't
figured out how to peacefully resolve disputes with civilized nations by
then, the Raptor isn't likely to be of much help.

> Lyndon Johnson tried to have both "guns and butter" (Viet Nam and
> Apollo) -- and started our long, death spiral of deficit spending.
>
NASA's budget is rather insignificant compared with *any* military
spending. Why concentrate on the pennies while wasting the megabucks? And,
one of the most wasteful types of military spending is to build systems
for which there is no application. We did that in Viet Nam, and we're
still doing that today. I really can't see the Raptor, or even F15s for
that matter, being challenged by any real-world "enemy".

> Just look at the recently passed transportation bill to see the
> ultimate example of government waste and stupidity. Let's hope a
> future Congress can do something about the problem -- the guys and
> gals that are there now have shown that they clearly have no clue.
>
Jay... "they" are "us". We middle-aged citizens are the ones in the
driver's seat. And, from what I can see, we're not doing so hot at
driving. Or even thinking about what direction we should be driving. So,
instead, we run in circles like chickens missing our heads, enacting piles
of pointless legislation and hoping that no one with any power objects.

Neil

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:06:40 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Of course, in 15 years, when China (or a nuclear armed Iran) is invading
>someone, I'll be probably be plenty glad we've got the F/A-22.

yeah .. esp the US should fear a nuclear armed Iran .. ROTFL.
aren't you rather short sighted? with what arguments are you storing tons
of bio- chemical- and nuclear weapons and start fingerpointing? esp. as you
started to have a pre-emptive strike as a defense written down in your
strategic papers [1]? there is no guarantee for the future that there won't
be a person in the white house pushing the red button.

so there is no need for futher expensive warcraft like the Raptor. the
money would be better spent at NASA, airsafety, schooling or whatever.
esp. as other countries like Iran are fare away from having that arsenal
that you already have _today_.

#m

[1] http://www.google.com/search?&q=site%3A.gov+doctrine+of+pre-emptive

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:02:47 GMT, Neil Gould wrote:

>> Of course, in 15 years, when China (or a nuclear armed Iran) is
>> invading someone, I'll be probably be plenty glad we've got the
>> F/A-22.
>>
>Hmm. That sounds like an unlikely scenario for many reasons, not the least
>of which is that in 15 years, China may be building those for us just as
>they're building some of Boeing's fleet, now. Seriously, if we haven't
>figured out how to peacefully resolve disputes with civilized nations by
>then, the Raptor isn't likely to be of much help.

and China has no need to attack the US. China only has to wait, time is on
their side. they will (and already are) outnumber the US.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:54:04 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:

>I suppose the response will be that the peaceful Chinese are just
>defending themselves against the U.S. imperialist running dogs :)

I won't say that the Chinese are the best people on the world, but I also
won't say this about Americans. And we here aren't Saints, too.

hm, they (China) spend only 1% more than the USA.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html

China as seen in the CIA Factbook:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html
Rank Order - Military expenditures - dollar figure
Rank 1 United States $ 370,700,000,000 date: March 2003
Rank 2 China $ 67,490,000,000 date: 2004

compared to a per capita expense .. well :-)
you must be afraid of something.

The money is better spent on other items in your household.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 08:59:30 -0500, "JJS" <jschneider@remove socks
cebridge.net> wrote:

>
> and what are you (the USA) going to do with it? you already can have world
>> domination with the military arsenal you currently have. There is no logic
>> reason for even more military power.
>
>Martin, If world domination was our objective, we could have probably accomplished that when the Soviet Union fell
>apart.

true

> (We might still be able to do that). I know I will never convince you otherwise, but the typical U.S.
>citizen is a decent human being

I met some Americans in the US.

> who really does want world peace

let's hope it.

> and wants to co-exist and work alongside other
>peoples.


the average American really doe not see much of the international stuff
that is going on. and he is mostly not interested. (speaking of the average
American). At least this was the impression I got.

> There are occurrences where some countries or rulers try to dominate others, such as the recent invasion of
>Kuwait by Iraq

recent?

>and a limited engagement is a viable option. We keep hearing that we are a "Superpower" and should be
>the world's policeman.

this was then.
today many see the *official* USA way outside of the wolrd community. Maybe
and hopefully this is only the *official* America. As long as I have this
impression (and many of my friends share this viewpoint) I will stay away
from this country, I won't feel save. I hope I am wrong and I know that the
average American can't understand my and my friends' viewpoint.

> Many if not most of us would prefer that other countries handle their own problems
>internally.

yes

> No one that I know personally wants to have to resort to nuclear warfare. To answer your assertions, I
>believe that there is very good logic to keep developing weapons for limited engagements.

this might be right .. but as I am not a friend of weapons at all I can't
share this aspect. Sure, there are always bad guys and one has to be
protected ... this is sort of a conflict ...

> Standing still with
>conventional weapon development will get us into a position where we have no other choice but the nuclear route.

there is always a choice.

>To keep this discussion on topic and aviation related:
>
>I know you get tired of having this thrown in your face but I also had a close relative who died in WWII trying to
>preserve your countries way of life .

hm, that of my ancestors; but I have good sources that they didn't like the
way they lived. It is rather complex to understand, even for folks here
that have not lived in this time (like me). It must be harder to understand
for foreigners.

> After that war did we come in and try and dominate your country?

domination? not really. but you haven't done anything without seeking your
own advantage (this was your good right, America was on the winner's side
of the war).

> You can read
>about him here:
>
>http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohiia2.htm
>
>scroll down to
>*GOTT, DONALD J. (Air Mission)

sorry about the loss your family had.

>I have a goal of visiting your country

Austria?

> to learn more of it's rich history and people and to visit the area where my
>cousin lost his life. Would you be available as a guide to the Hattonville area?

where is Hattonville? France? England?
Overflying your link it seems to be in France. Saarbruecken is close to the
French border.
I'd love to guide you when visiting my area (Tirol, Austria) - but there is
little to nothing left re historic sites of WWII in our area.

>Joe Schneider
>8437R

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Blueskies]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:CKFNe.267211$_o.147173@attbi_s71...
> Did anyone else catch the History Channel's "Modern Marvels: The F/A 22 Raptor" last night?
>
....
> Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the last manned fighter aircraft...)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

The F-22 is an interim, short run solution - the F-35 is the is the final manned solution...

IMESHO...

[Stubby]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:CKFNe.267211$_o.147173@attbi_s71...
>
>>Did anyone else catch the History Channel's "Modern Marvels: The F/A 22 Raptor" last night?

>>Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the last manned fighter aircraft...)

> The F-22 is an interim, short run solution - the F-35 is the is the final manned solution...

We'll never get there. The real war will be electronic and the effects
will be destabliling governments, economies and organizations. Any
planes that fly will be pilotless -- USAF is currently testing unmanned
refuellers. I wish they had spent a few billion on artificial
intelligence to make the F/A-22 be able to perform really dangerous
missions without risking pilot lives.

There was an allusion to us all living together peacefully without war.
von Clausewicz wrote that war is the ultimate resolution of political
disputes. If you can figure a way to get rid of politics and
politicians, maybe we can avoid war, but I don't think that is possible.

[George Patterson]

Carl Orton wrote:
>
> What are you going to do - fire everyone for awhile then
> try to hire them back?

Congress used to try that at the nuke plants at Oak Ridge every election. My
father was an atomic health physicist there. We almost wound up moving to
California just before one election and to Brazil during another. Union Carbide
(the contractor there) would try to have very public layoffs at one of the
plants and very private rehires at others to let the congresscritters get their
points for cost control and keep their people at the same time.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I just hope it isn't the last manned fighter aircraft...

Back in the 60s, Bill Mauldin did a lovely cartoon. A jet pilot is sitting on
the wheel of his F-104 despondently reading an article claiming that fighter
aircraft will soon be automated. Joe (one of Mauldin's WW II characters - an
infantryman) walks up and say "Don't let it get to ya, bub. I been obsolete fer
20 years."

I think that cartoon still applies.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:54:58 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
>>Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the last
>>manned fighter aircraft...)
>
>
> well, for me this stuff is more a weapon than a plane. I don't like
> weapons. And I don't like armed planes at all, doesn't matter if they are
> old or new or historic.

Why?

Matt

[Ash Wyllie]

Martin Hotze opined

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:54:04 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:

>>I suppose the response will be that the peaceful Chinese are just
>>defending themselves against the U.S. imperialist running dogs :)

>I won't say that the Chinese are the best people on the world, but I also
>won't say this about Americans. And we here aren't Saints, too.

>hm, they (China) spend only 1% more than the USA.
>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html

>China as seen in the CIA Factbook:
>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html
>Rank Order - Military expenditures - dollar figure
>Rank 1 United States $ 370,700,000,000 date: March 2003
>Rank 2 China $ 67,490,000,000 date: 2004

>compared to a per capita expense .. well :-)
>you must be afraid of something.

China is getting rapidly wealthier. Chinese military spending is rising
rapidly. The quality of the Chinese military is rising even faster.

China is pursuing a noisy and aggresively expansive foreign policy.

In a generation the Pacific rim will be a very dangerous place.

>The money is better spent on other items in your household.

Like, say, defending Europe?


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Skywise]

Martin Hotze > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 07:29:48 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:
>
>>> and what are you (the USA) going to do with it?
>>
>>Advance/upgrade. Status quo leads to stagnation. Plus, this
>>aircraft will allow for better survivability of the pilot. I don't
>>know about you, but I like the idea of the pilot having improved
>>odds of surviving a mission.
>
>
> almost nobody else invest this huge pile of money into such new
> developments. So you and your pilots will still stay as safe as you are
> now.
>
>>>you already can have world domination with the military arsenal
>>> you currently have.
>>
>>World domination isn't the purpose/mssion of the US military.
>
> no, not of your military.
>
>>>There is no logic reason for even more military power.
>>
>>see above.
>
> my point stays: there is no LOGIC reason. are your F22 (?) pilots
> falling out of the sky without any good reason? Or are they losing air
> combats (too often)?
>
> IMHO it is useless waste of money. but this is your money, not mine.
>
> #m
>

When you become an American citizen then you can have the right
to bitch about how we spend our money.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[W P Dixon]

AMEN!!!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
>
> When you become an American citizen then you can have the right
> to bitch about how we spend our money.
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>
> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
>
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jay Honeck]

>> Lyndon Johnson tried to have both "guns and butter" (Viet Nam and
>> Apollo) -- and started our long, death spiral of deficit spending.
>>
> NASA's budget is rather insignificant compared with *any* military
> spending. Why concentrate on the pennies while wasting the megabucks?

Guess you weren't around during the heady Apollo days, eh? NASA's budget
was hardly insignificant when we were building moonships.

Nowadays, of course, you are correct.

L.B.Johnson tried to do all sorts of things besides NASA on the "butter"
side of the budget, including "The War On Poverty" and "The Great
Society" -- both of which squandered trillions and failed to do anything but
make entire segments of our society utterly dependent upon the government
teat.

Which was, of course, the ultimate goal -- but that's another thread.

Of course, when he tried to do all these things AND Apollo AND Viet Nam,
something had to give.

In the end, we lost Mars, and possibly the future of the human race. It's
very sad, and future generations will probably look back on the time
immediately following the moon landings as a bizarre, anti-exploration
backlash, not unlike what the Islamo-Fascists are trying to impose on the
world today.

> Jay... "they" are "us". We middle-aged citizens are the ones in the
> driver's seat. And, from what I can see, we're not doing so hot at
> driving. Or even thinking about what direction we should be driving. So,
> instead, we run in circles like chickens missing our heads, enacting piles
> of pointless legislation and hoping that no one with any power objects.

True enough, but look at our choices! My God, we've got the conservatives
controlling the Federal Government, which should virtually assure a balanced
budget and fiscal restraint -- something I have supported my entire adult
life. Instead we've got unfettered pork-barrel spending, on an almost
universal scale. There isn't a county in America that isn't receiving some
sort of Federal payola in the current budget, and it's disgusting.

And the loyal opposition presents absolutely no alternative. If anything,
the situation would be frighteningly worse, if the tables were turned. I
can't imagine what the deficit would be if the Democrats were to ever
control both houses of congress, and the presidency. It boggles the mind.

No, I'm afraid we are screwed until the Libertarians figure out how to
present a politically viable candidate. It will be a race to see if that
will happen before the next revolution.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Ash Wyllie wrote:
>
> In a generation the Pacific rim will be a very dangerous place.

The Atlantic carried a story a month or two back on this. One of our military
experts was quoted as saying "Getting into a war with China is easy. I can think
of several trigger points; Taiwan, for instance. The question is, how do get
yourself *out* of a war with China?"

Some points the article made -- 1) China is a nuclear power. 2) Their sub force
is increasing rapidly and could control most of the Pacific in ten years or so
if they maintain the current build rate. 3) They have a small carrier force and
are working hard at developing it. Carriers give you offensive capabilities that
nothing else will provide.

In short, in ten to twenty years, China will have offensive capacity which will
allow them to do pretty much anything they want in the Pacific and they will be
able to easily sink any surface forces we deploy against them. What they do with
this remains to be seen, of course.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:VLaOe.1126$N22.942@trndny07...
> Ash Wyllie wrote:
> >
> > In a generation the Pacific rim will be a very dangerous place.
>
> The Atlantic carried a story a month or two back on this. One of our
military
> experts was quoted as saying "Getting into a war with China is easy. I can
think
> of several trigger points; Taiwan, for instance. The question is, how do
get
> yourself *out* of a war with China?"


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050719-103400-7322r.htm

Chinese military buildup reaches beyond Taiwan
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 20, 2005



China is rapidly building up its military forces and weapons systems to
project power beyond Taiwan, according to a Pentagon report made public
yesterday.
Chinese military leaders "have expressed the view that control of Taiwan
would enable the [People's Liberation Army's] Navy to move its maritime
defensive perimeter further seaward and improve Beijing's ability to
influence regional sea lines of communication," said the annual report,
required by Congress.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters that China's economy
and defense spending are growing "and they have been purchasing substantial
numbers of modern weapons from a variety of countries, including Russia."
"They have been deploying additional capabilities," he said.
China's efforts, the report said, are shifting the balance of power
across the Taiwan Strait in Beijing's favor.
"The cross-Strait military balance appears to be shifting toward Beijing
as a result of China's sustained economic growth, growing diplomatic
leverage and improvements in the PLA's military capabilities," the report
said.
For the first time since the report was produced in 2000, the Pentagon
presented several assessments showing China may not evolve as a peaceful
international power.
China's growing nationalism, an expanding military that proliferates
arms to rogue states and a government that is still adapting to stronger
roles give it the potential to be a threatening power.
"In the future, as China's military power grows, China's leaders may be
tempted to resort to force or coercion more quickly to press diplomatic
advantage, advance security interests, or resolve disputes," the report
said.
The report stated that the U.S. intelligence community estimates it will
take China until 2010 to be ready to confront a medium-sized power.
However, the report noted that Chinese military secrecy has resulted in
"incomplete data" about its arms.
For example, U.S. intelligence agencies were taken by surprise by
China's development of the Yuan class of attack submarine that has new
underwater propulsion capabilities.



>
> Some points the article made -- 1) China is a nuclear power. 2) Their sub
force
> is increasing rapidly and could control most of the Pacific in ten years
or so
> if they maintain the current build rate. 3) They have a small carrier
force and
> are working hard at developing it. Carriers give you offensive
capabilities that
> nothing else will provide.
>
> In short, in ten to twenty years, China will have offensive capacity which
will
> allow them to do pretty much anything they want in the Pacific and they
will be
> able to easily sink any surface forces we deploy against them. What they
do with
> this remains to be seen, of course.
>

China is NOT a benevolent power in any sense.

[Dan Luke]

"George Patterson" wrote:

> The Atlantic carried a story a month or two back on this. One of our
> military experts was quoted as saying "Getting into a war with China
> is easy. I can think of several trigger points; Taiwan, for instance.
> The question is, how do get yourself *out* of a war with China?"

Indeed, the U. S. may be faced with the unsavory alternatives of war
with China or abandoning its closest allies in the region--Taiwan,
Japan, The Philippines, S. Korea--to Chinese domination.

China is the elephant in the room of American foreign policy. With its
Chamber of Commerce mentality, the Bush. administration, like the
Clinton administration before it, appears to believe that trade
entanglements will restrain Chinese aggression indefinitely. This
policy is helping China develop an economic engine powerful and
sophisticated enough to produce a military mega-power.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> China is the elephant in the room of American foreign policy. With its
> Chamber of Commerce mentality, the Bush. administration, like the Clinton
> administration before it, appears to believe that trade entanglements will
> restrain Chinese aggression indefinitely. This policy is helping China
> develop an economic engine powerful and sophisticated enough to produce a
> military mega-power.

That is inevitable, no matter what we do.

I think the morale is: 'Tis better to trade with the elephant than to get
stomped by him.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> China is the elephant in the room of American foreign policy. With its
>> Chamber of Commerce mentality, the Bush. administration, like the Clinton
>> administration before it, appears to believe that trade entanglements will
>> restrain Chinese aggression indefinitely. This policy is helping China
>> develop an economic engine powerful and sophisticated enough to produce a
>> military mega-power.
>
> That is inevitable, no matter what we do.
>
> I think the morale is: 'Tis better to trade with the elephant than to get
> stomped by him.

'Tis better to fatten up the elephant before you get stomped by him?

[Dave]

Well,

I don't see the problem. If this thing can take on 8 other aircraft, then
it means the US needs fewer of them.

What was the ratio for the F-16 and F-18s?

Figure out the difference, and thats how many F-22s we need. Even if they
do cost more.


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>> 8 versus 1! And this against arguably the best fighter (and pilots) in
>> the world.
>>
>> Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the last
>> manned fighter aircraft...)
>
> Impressive, but...
>
> One must remember that it is politically important for military brass to
> ensure that their latest toys get good press. Not saying the dogfight was
> faked, but I would not be surprised to learn that the exercise was
> designed to show the F-22 to maximum advantage.
>
> Congress has been upset about the astounding cost of the Raptor, which has
> gone from around $90 million to nearly $200 million per plane. At one
> point in 1999, conservative Republicans Jerry Lewis of California and Bill
> Young of Florida, and conservative Democrat John Murtha of Pennsylvania,
> all key figures on the House Appropriations Committee, attempted to zero
> production funding because of skyrocketing costs and procurement
> "irregularities." To keep that from happening again, the Air Force will
> make every effort to make sure the F-22 is perceived as the uber-fighter
> it was touted to be.
>
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>

[Jose]

> 'Tis better to fatten up the elephant before you get stomped by him?

'tis better the elephant isn't hungry.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>>> Lyndon Johnson tried to have both "guns and butter" (Viet Nam and
>>> Apollo) -- and started our long, death spiral of deficit spending.
>>>
>> NASA's budget is rather insignificant compared with *any* military
>> spending. Why concentrate on the pennies while wasting the megabucks?
>
> Guess you weren't around during the heady Apollo days, eh? NASA's
> budget was hardly insignificant when we were building moonships.
>
I was an adult before we landed on the moon, so I remember those days
pretty well... ;-)

Those days were in the midst of the war in Viet Nam and the arms race
w/the Soviet Union. AIRC we weren't outspending those involvements to get
to the moon.

> Of course, when he tried to do all these things AND Apollo AND Viet
> Nam, something had to give.
>
We were spending big bucks on many other military projects that were not
deployed in Viet Nam. What do you think cost us more; the Apollo program,
or the ICBMs, nuclear subs and Polaris programs during that time span?

>> Jay... "they" are "us". We middle-aged citizens are the ones in the
>> driver's seat. And, from what I can see, we're not doing so hot at
>> driving. Or even thinking about what direction we should be driving.
>> So, instead, we run in circles like chickens missing our heads,
>> enacting piles of pointless legislation and hoping that no one with
>> any power objects.
>
> True enough, but look at our choices! My God, we've got the
> conservatives controlling the Federal Government, which should
> virtually assure a balanced budget and fiscal restraint -- something
> I have supported my entire adult life.
>
The problem is, those controlling the Federal Government are not
conservatives, regardless of what label they assign to themselves. I tend
to go by what people do, rather than what they say. And, what they are
doing is about as far from conservative as one can get. I think they get
away with it in part because people are satisfied to believe that they are
what they call themselves.

> And the loyal opposition presents absolutely no alternative. If
> anything, the situation would be frighteningly worse, if the tables
> were turned. I can't imagine what the deficit would be if the
> Democrats were to ever control both houses of congress, and the
> presidency. It boggles the mind.
>
The only real-world examples I recall would call this notion into
question. What does appear to happen is that the focus of the spending
shifts, but overall, the amount of spending doesn't seem to change much.

Neil

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:eAkOe.272944$_o.188778@attbi_s71...
> > China is the elephant in the room of American foreign policy. With its
> > Chamber of Commerce mentality, the Bush. administration, like the
Clinton
> > administration before it, appears to believe that trade entanglements
will
> > restrain Chinese aggression indefinitely. This policy is helping China
> > develop an economic engine powerful and sophisticated enough to produce
a
> > military mega-power.
>
> That is inevitable, no matter what we do.
>
> I think the morale is: 'Tis better to trade with the elephant than to get
> stomped by him.

"When trade doesn't cross borders, armies will" -- Adam Smith

[Ash Wyllie]

George Patterson opined

>Ash Wyllie wrote:
>>
>> In a generation the Pacific rim will be a very dangerous place.

>The Atlantic carried a story a month or two back on this. One of our military
> experts was quoted as saying "Getting into a war with China is easy. I can
>think of several trigger points; Taiwan, for instance. The question is, how
>do get yourself *out* of a war with China?"

>Some points the article made -- 1) China is a nuclear power. 2) Their sub
>force is increasing rapidly and could control most of the Pacific in ten
>years or so if they maintain the current build rate. 3) They have a small
>carrier force and are working hard at developing it. Carriers give you
>offensive capabilities that nothing else will provide.

>In short, in ten to twenty years, China will have offensive capacity which
>will allow them to do pretty much anything they want in the Pacific and they
>will be able to easily sink any surface forces we deploy against them. What
>they do with this remains to be seen, of course.

Very true. Our best hope is that a middle class democratic revolution occurs
and then behaves in a much less aggrexive manner.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Ash Wyllie]

Jay Honeck opined


>No, I'm afraid we are screwed until the Libertarians figure out how to
>present a politically viable candidate. It will be a race to see if that
>will happen before the next revolution.

We're screwed then... Libertarians are philosophically against buying votes
using taxpayer money.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Markus Voget]

Hi Joe!

"JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> wrote:
> I have a goal of visiting your country to learn more of it's rich
> history and people and to visit the area where my cousin lost his
> life. Would you be available as a guide to the Hattonville area?

Hattonville is located Southeast of Verdun, France, thus quite a ways from
Martin's location in Austria. I happen to live in the Southwest of Germany,
about two hours by car (or 45 minutes by plane :-) from the Verdun area.
Please let me know if I can be of any assistance in your travel plans.


Many greetings,
Markus Voget


--
For email, substitute epost with web.

[Icebound]

"Stubby" > wrote in message
...
> Blueskies wrote:
....

>
> There was an allusion to us all living together peacefully without war.
> von Clausewicz wrote that war is the ultimate resolution of political
> disputes. If you can figure a way to get rid of politics and politicians,
> maybe we can avoid war, but I don't think that is possible.

Actually, it is the other way around. If you get *more* politicians
talking, you *avoid* war.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8772.htm

Major (world) war is the result of backroom alliances, not political
rhetoric. The mentality that I ask my buddy to join me in a barroom brawl
no matter what, whether or not it is good for the bar, him, his family, the
neighbourhood, etc.

Politicians, even the woefully corrupt and inefficient United Nations,
usually manage to remain in a war of words instead of knives. Unless they
have allowed themselves to be seduced into using their forum for backroom
conspiracy instead of political argument.

Major (world) war will be averted only so long as nations grit their teeth
and abide within some global framework, bad as that may be, but encouraging
others to do likewise.

When nations claim to be somehow above that, and act unilaterally, others
are also encouraged to do likewise.

You may be right...in that "I don't think its possible..." to avoid "wars".
But the goal has to be to avoid *world* wars. We managed to avoid that for
the past sixty years...

What has changed to have us be sliding into it at this very moment?


--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> Dave wrote:
>
>> Well,
>>
>> I don't see the problem. If this thing can take on 8 other aircraft,
>> then
>> it means the US needs fewer of them.
>>
>> What was the ratio for the F-16 and F-18s?
>>
>> Figure out the difference, and thats how many F-22s we need. Even if
>> they
>> do cost more.
>>
>
> That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You
> cannot
> count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the F-15/F-16.
>

The 8-1 was against an F-15 that is at least as capable as anything anyone
else has and more capable than what we will probably up against.

[gregg]

Dave wrote:

> Well,
>
> I don't see the problem. If this thing can take on 8 other aircraft, then
> it means the US needs fewer of them.
>
> What was the ratio for the F-16 and F-18s?
>
> Figure out the difference, and thats how many F-22s we need. Even if they
> do cost more.
>

That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You cannot
count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the F-15/F-16.





--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:yHrOe.2879$Ix4.713@okepread03...
>
> "gregg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dave wrote:
>>
>>> Well,
>>>
>>> I don't see the problem. If this thing can take on 8 other aircraft,
>>> then
>>> it means the US needs fewer of them.
>>>
>>> What was the ratio for the F-16 and F-18s?
>>>
>>> Figure out the difference, and thats how many F-22s we need. Even if
>>> they
>>> do cost more.
>>>
>>
>> That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You
>> cannot
>> count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the F-15/F-16.
>>
>
> The 8-1 was against an F-15 that is at least as capable as anything anyone
> else has and more capable than what we will probably up against.
>

Oh, and that IS a good thing.

[gregg]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> > well, for me this stuff is more a weapon than a plane. I don't like
>> > weapons. And I don't like armed planes at all, doesn't matter if they
>> > are old or new or historic.
>>
>> Why?
>
>
> 'cause I don't like weapons.

Does your dislike of weapons therefore lead you to decide you don't want
the US to have weapons?


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[JJS]

where is Hattonville? France? England?
> Overflying your link it seems to be in France. Saarbruecken is close to the
> French border.
> I'd love to guide you when visiting my area (Tirol, Austria) - but there is
> little to nothing left re historic sites of WWII in our area.
>
Damn, Are you sure you're not French?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[JJS]

> Hattonville is located Southeast of Verdun, France, thus quite a ways from
> Martin's location in Austria. I happen to live in the Southwest of Germany,
> about two hours by car (or 45 minutes by plane :-) from the Verdun area.
> Please let me know if I can be of any assistance in your travel plans.
>
Markus, Thanks for the wonderful offer. If and when I can afford the trip I may be in contact.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[George Patterson]

gregg wrote:
>
> That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You cannot
> count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the F-15/F-16.

Well, at the present time, you can count on them flying something inferior to
the F-15/F-16. Given the economic situation in Russia, it doesn't look like
Sukhoi or MiG is going to be changing that anytime soon.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Ash Wyllie wrote:
>
> Very true. Our best hope is that a middle class democratic revolution occurs
> and then behaves in a much less aggrexive manner.

Actually, there is one slightly better hope. Every country that has carrier
capacity today developed it over a period of 70 years or more. Many people
looking at the Russian experience have theorized that that may be the only way
to develop a workable aircraft carrier force. It may well be impossible to start
off with any relatively modern carrier -- it's just too complicated and requires
a large, experienced crew.

The crewmembers in our navy have built upon generations of handed down and
modified experience. The Chinese may well require generations to catch up.
Without carriers, aggressive overseas action is pretty much impossible.

It should be noted, however, that some other people feel that the Russian
failure to make a go of their carrier was based on the fact that they were not
interested in aggressive action in any area their army couldn't reach.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Icebound > posted:
>
> Major (world) war will be averted only so long as nations grit their
> teeth and abide within some global framework, bad as that may be, but
> encouraging others to do likewise.
>
> When nations claim to be somehow above that, and act unilaterally,
> others are also encouraged to do likewise.
>
> You may be right...in that "I don't think its possible..." to avoid
> "wars". But the goal has to be to avoid *world* wars. We managed to
> avoid that for the past sixty years...
>
> What has changed to have us be sliding into it at this very moment?
>
Asked, and answered by your own writing. ;-)

Neil

[Stubby]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Icebound > posted:
>
>>Major (world) war will be averted only so long as nations grit their
>>teeth and abide within some global framework, bad as that may be, but
>>encouraging others to do likewise.
>>
>>When nations claim to be somehow above that, and act unilaterally,
>>others are also encouraged to do likewise.
>>
>>You may be right...in that "I don't think its possible..." to avoid
>>"wars". But the goal has to be to avoid *world* wars. We managed to
>>avoid that for the past sixty years...
>>
>>What has changed to have us be sliding into it at this very moment?
>>
>
> Asked, and answered by your own writing. ;-)
>

You and I, sitting at our desks, are not going to start a world war.
But when get get together with a bunch of our friends and decide how
things "should" be and impose them on the rest of the world, we are
walking down the path to a world war. So having a forum where countries
can air their views doesn't help.

And, ignoring Korea and Viet Nam because they are not "world" wars is
simply playing with words. Terrorism is building, it is worldwide in
scope and no bunch of politicians is going to cope with it. Terrorism
is a decentralized emotional attack rather than a political dispute such
as a land boundary.

[Jose]

> But the goal has to be to avoid *world* wars. We managed to avoid that for
> the past sixty years...

.... which is nothing in the context of world history.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

George Patterson wrote:
> gregg wrote:
>
>>
>> That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You
>> cannot count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the
>> F-15/F-16.
>
>
> Well, at the present time, you can count on them flying something
> inferior to the F-15/F-16. Given the economic situation in Russia, it
> doesn't look like Sukhoi or MiG is going to be changing that anytime soon.

So where can I find out how F-15/F-16/F-18 do against MiG-29, Su-31,
Mirage, Eurofighter, Griffon?

[john smith]

>>>I'd love to guide you when visiting my area (Tirol, Austria) - but there is
>>>little to nothing left re historic sites of WWII in our area.

> "JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> wrote:
>>Damn, Are you sure you're not French?

Martin Hotze wrote:
> yes.

But he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once! :-))

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> George Patterson wrote:
>> gregg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You
>>> cannot count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the
>>> F-15/F-16.
>>
>>
>> Well, at the present time, you can count on them flying something
>> inferior to the F-15/F-16. Given the economic situation in Russia, it
>> doesn't look like Sukhoi or MiG is going to be changing that anytime
>> soon.
>
> So where can I find out how F-15/F-16/F-18 do against MiG-29, Su-31,
> Mirage, Eurofighter, Griffon?


Well in the Desert Shield/Storm F-15s kicked the crap out of Iraqi Mig-29s.
Including one kill where a 15C literally maneuvered the -29 into the ground.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> gregg > wrote:
>
>> > 'cause I don't like weapons.
>>
>> Does your dislike of weapons therefore lead you to decide you don't want
>> the US to have weapons?
>
> my dislike is not (only) directed towards the US.
>


Martin,

First, this is an honest question. I'm not trying to start a flame war I
really want to know.

You've said you don't like weapons. Is this a dislike of the object or what
they are used for?

Do you think nations should unilaterally disarm?

[George Patterson]

john smith wrote:
>
> So where can I find out how F-15/F-16/F-18 do against MiG-29, Su-31,
> Mirage, Eurofighter, Griffon?

The USAF has a base out west someplace where they compete against them. Might be
the "Top Gun" school.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Newps]

George Patterson wrote:

> john smith wrote:
>
>>
>> So where can I find out how F-15/F-16/F-18 do against MiG-29, Su-31,
>> Mirage, Eurofighter, Griffon?
>
>
> The USAF has a base out west someplace where they compete against them.
> Might be the "Top Gun" school.

Top Gun is Navy and the base is in the desert now, no longer at Miramar.

[Icebound]

"Stubby" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Icebound > posted:
>>
>>>Major (world) war will be averted only so long as nations grit their
>>>teeth and abide within some global framework, bad as that may be, but
>>>encouraging others to do likewise.
>>>
>>>When nations claim to be somehow above that, and act unilaterally,
>>>others are also encouraged to do likewise.
>>>
>>>You may be right...in that "I don't think its possible..." to avoid
>>>"wars". But the goal has to be to avoid *world* wars. We managed to
>>>avoid that for the past sixty years...
>>>
>>>What has changed to have us be sliding into it at this very moment?
>>>
>>
>> Asked, and answered by your own writing. ;-)
>>
>
> You and I, sitting at our desks, are not going to start a world war. But
> when get get together with a bunch of our friends and decide how things
> "should" be and impose them on the rest of the world, we are walking down
> the path to a world war.

Exactly. When we get together with a bunch of friends *out of public view*.

> So having a forum where countries can air their views doesn't help.
>

Ah, but that is where it *does* help. The global forum allows some public
scrutiny of our backroom dealings, with this effect. It discourages such
dealings, because it publicly affects our global credibility when they are
discovered. Such a forum also pressures nations to act for the common good
of the whole globe, and not just the appeasement of some narrow coalition.

It is imperfect, to be sure, but a lot better that individual coalitions
aligned on opposite sides. Such coalitions will and do occur in global
forums as well, but they tend to be a lot more careful when they are in the
public eye of the global community, the global community which they hope to
influence.


> And, ignoring Korea and Viet Nam because they are not "world" wars is
> simply playing with words. Terrorism is building, it is worldwide in
> scope and no bunch of politicians is going to cope with it. Terrorism is
> a decentralized emotional attack rather than a political dispute such as a
> land boundary.

Terrorism is building why?

Politicians are probably the *only* ones who are going to cope with it
successfully. No *policeman* can act effectively unless he is operating
under a rule of law. Otherwise, the policeman is nothing but a vigilante,
and that just encourages the other side to attack these vigilantes in a
never-ending circle.

Terrorists may be brought to justice by policemen, but only under political
direction.

[W P Dixon]

Hmmmm,
How did a conversation about a new airplane get to people who have never
served in the military talking about what causes terrorism. Come on hold
hands and sing boys ..everything will be fine ;)
As for the Raptor it is a kick butt aircraft, sure wish the old
McDonnell-Douglas would have gotten the contract for it. I would have left
the C-17 program and went straight to it. As for a reason for a new
warbird,..well you can take a look at our GA fleet for that. Sometimes you
just need to replace them. They get old , cost a small fortune to
maintain..and we have to remember these aircraft are not flown a small
number of hours a year.
You also have to consider that these airplanes are FLOWN, and to the
limits. They just don't go cruise around the patch at 120knots and come back
down and land. As for the best fighter, well it is not as simple as to the
best airplane. One has to have the best pilots to put in those fighters. It
is the combination that makes them lethal.
Yep new aircraft cost a bundle, but saying we should never upgrade our
equipment and replace an aging fleet has gotten us into trouble before when
this country wanted to "mind it's own biz." If the US allows it's military
to deteriorate due to aging, then we may as well stop spending money on
training the best fighter pilots in the world as well,...but hey we can
always just hold hands and sing !;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stubby" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>> Recently, Icebound > posted:
>>>
>>>>Major (world) war will be averted only so long as nations grit their
>>>>teeth and abide within some global framework, bad as that may be, but
>>>>encouraging others to do likewise.
>>>>
>>>>When nations claim to be somehow above that, and act unilaterally,
>>>>others are also encouraged to do likewise.
>>>>
>>>>You may be right...in that "I don't think its possible..." to avoid
>>>>"wars". But the goal has to be to avoid *world* wars. We managed to
>>>>avoid that for the past sixty years...
>>>>
>>>>What has changed to have us be sliding into it at this very moment?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Asked, and answered by your own writing. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> You and I, sitting at our desks, are not going to start a world war. But
>> when get get together with a bunch of our friends and decide how things
>> "should" be and impose them on the rest of the world, we are walking down
>> the path to a world war.
>
> Exactly. When we get together with a bunch of friends *out of public
> view*.
>
>> So having a forum where countries can air their views doesn't help.
>>
>
> Ah, but that is where it *does* help. The global forum allows some public
> scrutiny of our backroom dealings, with this effect. It discourages such
> dealings, because it publicly affects our global credibility when they are
> discovered. Such a forum also pressures nations to act for the common
> good of the whole globe, and not just the appeasement of some narrow
> coalition.
>
> It is imperfect, to be sure, but a lot better that individual coalitions
> aligned on opposite sides. Such coalitions will and do occur in global
> forums as well, but they tend to be a lot more careful when they are in
> the public eye of the global community, the global community which they
> hope to influence.
>
>
>> And, ignoring Korea and Viet Nam because they are not "world" wars is
>> simply playing with words. Terrorism is building, it is worldwide in
>> scope and no bunch of politicians is going to cope with it. Terrorism is
>> a decentralized emotional attack rather than a political dispute such as
>> a land boundary.
>
> Terrorism is building why?
>
> Politicians are probably the *only* ones who are going to cope with it
> successfully. No *policeman* can act effectively unless he is operating
> under a rule of law. Otherwise, the policeman is nothing but a vigilante,
> and that just encourages the other side to attack these vigilantes in a
> never-ending circle.
>
> Terrorists may be brought to justice by policemen, but only under
> political direction.
>
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> Martin,
>>
>> First, this is an honest question. I'm not trying to start a flame war I
>> really want to know.
>
> ok
>
>> You've said you don't like weapons. Is this a dislike of the object or
>> what
>> they are used for?
>
> I don't like weapons as weapons, means: if somebody is around me carrying
> a
> gun I try to leave. I even try to stand not too close to armed cops
> because
> of the same cause.
>


Thanks,

I can understand dislike of what weapons can do. I just don't understand
dislike of an object that basically is just a piece of metal. I assume that
you don't think that the armed cop is going to pull the gun and shoot you
and since you are posting in what is a technical forum that it isn't going
to go off on its own.

>> Do you think nations should unilaterally disarm?
>
> philosophically: yes.
> but in the real world this is not possible.

At least you are reasonable on that.

[Hilton]

George Patterson wrote:
> john smith wrote:
> >
> > So where can I find out how F-15/F-16/F-18 do against MiG-29, Su-31,
> > Mirage, Eurofighter, Griffon?
>
> The USAF has a base out west someplace where they compete against them.
Might be
> the "Top Gun" school.

http://www.nellis.af.mil/red_flag/index.htm

Hilton

[Bob Moore]

"W P Dixon" wrote
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech

Patrick, just what is a "student SPL"?

Bob Moore

[W P Dixon]

student Sport Pilot ;) Figured it was about time to learn how to fly;)

Patrick


"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> "W P Dixon" wrote
>> Patrick
>> student SPL
>> aircraft structural mech
>
> Patrick, just what is a "student SPL"?
>
> Bob Moore

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> "W P Dixon" wrote
>> Patrick
>> student SPL
>> aircraft structural mech
>
> Patrick, just what is a "student SPL"?
>
> Bob Moore


He's training for his LSA.

[W P Dixon]

Yep,
But with all the driving I do to fly sometimes I feel I am training for an
over the road license instead! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:9%KOe.2923$Ix4.28@okepread03...
>
> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> . 121...
>> "W P Dixon" wrote
>>> Patrick
>>> student SPL
>>> aircraft structural mech
>>
>> Patrick, just what is a "student SPL"?
>>
>> Bob Moore
>
>
> He's training for his LSA.
>

[john smith]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>George Patterson wrote:
>>
>>>gregg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You
>>>>cannot count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the
>>>>F-15/F-16.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, at the present time, you can count on them flying something
>>>inferior to the F-15/F-16. Given the economic situation in Russia, it
>>>doesn't look like Sukhoi or MiG is going to be changing that anytime
>>>soon.
>>
>>So where can I find out how F-15/F-16/F-18 do against MiG-29, Su-31,
>>Mirage, Eurofighter, Griffon?
>
>
>
> Well in the Desert Shield/Storm F-15s kicked the crap out of Iraqi Mig-29s.
> Including one kill where a 15C literally maneuvered the -29 into the ground.

That doesn't count!!!
I mean against a pilot from a real country, one that has been trained to
think for themselves.

[john smith]

>>> So where can I find out how F-15/F-16/F-18 do against MiG-29, Su-31,
>>> Mirage, Eurofighter, Griffon?

>> The USAF has a base out west someplace where they compete against
>> them. Might be the "Top Gun" school.

> Top Gun is Navy and the base is in the desert now, no longer at Miramar.

USAF used to be Red Flag at Nellis.
Navy is now at NAS Fallon NV.

[Icebound]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Hmmmm,
> ...
> As for the Raptor it is a kick butt aircraft,

We had one once <sigh>: (search google for "avro arrow").

But somebody told us to quit the program and cut up the six that existed,
for scrap. Probably because it was 20 years ahead of anything *they* had at
the time. So our aerospace program died overnight, and most of the
aerospace jobs and the aerospace brains moved someplace else, guess where.

The nominal reason for the program shutdown was cost, but not too many
believe it.

So don't let that happen to you, otherwise Canada might get a chance to
start a military-aircraft program back up....with your people and your
technology. Or maybe China will ;-).

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>> Well in the Desert Shield/Storm F-15s kicked the crap out of Iraqi
>> Mig-29s. Including one kill where a 15C literally maneuvered the -29 into
>> the ground.
>
> That doesn't count!!!
> I mean against a pilot from a real country, one that has been trained to
> think for themselves.


Sure they do. Those pilots were trained by the USSR and at the time members
of the 4th Largest military in them world. If number ~3 against number 4
doesn't count what does.

[W P Dixon]

I hope it never happens here,
As long as a US company stays a US company it probably won't. The Arrow
was a nice looking plane ;) Don't feel to bad budget cuts hurt our programs
as well..C-17 was almost lost several times. Defense contracting has lots of
games to play and hoops to go through..part of the biz I guess in any
country.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hmmmm,
>> ...
>> As for the Raptor it is a kick butt aircraft,
>
> We had one once <sigh>: (search google for "avro arrow").
>
> But somebody told us to quit the program and cut up the six that existed,
> for scrap. Probably because it was 20 years ahead of anything *they* had
> at the time. So our aerospace program died overnight, and most of the
> aerospace jobs and the aerospace brains moved someplace else, guess where.
>
> The nominal reason for the program shutdown was cost, but not too many
> believe it.
>
> So don't let that happen to you, otherwise Canada might get a chance to
> start a military-aircraft program back up....with your people and your
> technology. Or maybe China will ;-).
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jay Beckman]

"john smith" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>> So where can I find out how F-15/F-16/F-18 do against MiG-29, Su-31,
>>>> Mirage, Eurofighter, Griffon?
>
>>> The USAF has a base out west someplace where they compete against them.
>>> Might be the "Top Gun" school.
>
>> Top Gun is Navy and the base is in the desert now, no longer at Miramar.
>
> USAF used to be Red Flag at Nellis.

AFAIK, it still is...

There is usually a Red Flag cycle underway when we are up at the Las Vegsas
Motor Speedway in March for NASCAR.

Can't hardly stay in the TV truck for the impromptu airshow going on
overhead not to mention our cameras on the pressbox roof get a great veiw of
the Nellis ramp and runways.

The Thunderbirds usually will do some flybys as well.

This past spring, we were treated to the sight of not one, not two but three
B2s coming and going along with a seemingly endless string of F15s, F16s,
B1s, A10s, KC135s/10s and even a British Nimrod, some F117s and a Navy EA6B.

Jay Beckman - PP/ASEL
Arizona Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

[Bob Moore]

"W P Dixon" wrote

> student Sport Pilot ;)

Just yanking your chain....what's the "L" for?

Bob Moore

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Icebound > posted:

> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
>> Hmmmm,
>> ...
>> As for the Raptor it is a kick butt aircraft,
>
> We had one once <sigh>: (search google for "avro arrow").
>
> But somebody told us to quit the program and cut up the six that
> existed, for scrap. Probably because it was 20 years ahead of
> anything *they* had at the time. So our aerospace program died
> overnight, and most of the aerospace jobs and the aerospace brains
> moved someplace else, guess where.
>
> The nominal reason for the program shutdown was cost, but not too many
> believe it.
>
There certainly seems to be more than one explanation for discontinuing
the Arrow program. According to the movie w/Dan Akroyd (yeah, I know), it
was brought down by a personal conflict between the Prime Minister and
Avro's leadership. It also suggested that the US bought the delta wing
technology of the Arrow for its F102 program. Who knows how much is true
vs. fiction?

Neil

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> There certainly seems to be more than one explanation for discontinuing
> the Arrow program. According to the movie w/Dan Akroyd (yeah, I know), it
> was brought down by a personal conflict between the Prime Minister and
> Avro's leadership. It also suggested that the US bought the delta wing
> technology of the Arrow for its F102 program. Who knows how much is true
> vs. fiction?
>

Well, since the Avro Arrow project was begun in 1953, the same year the
F-102 made it's first flight and five years after the F-102's precursor the
XF-92 made it's first flight, we know the part about the US buying the delta
wing technology of the Arrow for its F-102 program is pure fiction.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>> ...
>> As for the Raptor it is a kick butt aircraft,
>>
>
> We had one once <sigh>: (search google for "avro arrow").
>

Whose butt did the Avro Arrow kick?

[gregg]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
> "gregg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dave wrote:
>>
>>> Well,
>>>
>>> I don't see the problem. If this thing can take on 8 other aircraft,
>>> then
>>> it means the US needs fewer of them.
>>>
>>> What was the ratio for the F-16 and F-18s?
>>>
>>> Figure out the difference, and thats how many F-22s we need. Even if
>>> they
>>> do cost more.
>>>
>>
>> That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You
>> cannot
>> count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the F-15/F-16.
>>
>
> The 8-1 was against an F-15 that is at least as capable as anything anyone
> else has and more capable than what we will probably up against.


Today, yes. But it won't always be so. I believe that in time there will be
other superpowers and they will be technologically equal - maybe even
superior.

Won't be right away. Which is exactly why I wonder if it's smart to buy
dozens of squadrons of F-22's. (I exxagerate the numbers but you get my
point I trust)


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[gregg]

Icebound wrote:

>
> "Stubby" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Blueskies wrote:
> ...
>
>>
>> There was an allusion to us all living together peacefully without war.
>> von Clausewicz wrote that war is the ultimate resolution of political
>> disputes. If you can figure a way to get rid of politics and
>> politicians, maybe we can avoid war, but I don't think that is possible.
>
> Actually, it is the other way around. If you get *more* politicians
> talking, you *avoid* war.
>
> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8772.htm
>
> Major (world) war is the result of backroom alliances, not political
> rhetoric. The mentality that I ask my buddy to join me in a barroom brawl
> no matter what, whether or not it is good for the bar, him, his family,
> the neighbourhood, etc.
>
> Politicians, even the woefully corrupt and inefficient United Nations,
> usually manage to remain in a war of words instead of knives. Unless they
> have allowed themselves to be seduced into using their forum for backroom
> conspiracy instead of political argument.
>
> Major (world) war will be averted only so long as nations grit their teeth
> and abide within some global framework, bad as that may be, but
> encouraging others to do likewise.
>
> When nations claim to be somehow above that, and act unilaterally, others
> are also encouraged to do likewise.
>
> You may be right...in that "I don't think its possible..." to avoid
> "wars".
> But the goal has to be to avoid *world* wars. We managed to avoid that
> for the past sixty years...
>
> What has changed to have us be sliding into it at this very moment?
>
>


the oil situation, for one thing. Increasing demand from China and India.
Fairly level production levels forom the ME.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[gregg]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> . 121...
>> "W P Dixon" wrote
>>> Patrick
>>> student SPL
>>> aircraft structural mech
>>
>> Patrick, just what is a "student SPL"?
>>
>> Bob Moore
>
>
> He's training for his LSA.


I hate TLA's ;^)


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Ben Hallert]

> Just yanking your chain....what's the "L" for?

Light as in "Light Sport Aircraft", I'd guess.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[W P Dixon]

Or dare we say license!!!!!!!! HAHAHA ;) I just had to!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Just yanking your chain....what's the "L" for?
>
> Light as in "Light Sport Aircraft", I'd guess.
>
> Ben Hallert
> PP-ASEL
>

[[email protected]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:02:47 GMT, Neil Gould wrote:
>
> and China has no need to attack the US. China only has to wait, time is on
> their side. they will (and already are) outnumber the US.
>

The issue is Taiwan. In principle it's similar to East and West Germany
in that everyone would like reunification but on somewhat opposite
terms. The Taiwanese would prefer to wait for the Communists to
liberalize more, while the Communists see it as a matter of national
sovereignty.

The key here is time. If the PLA can land large numbers of troops on
Taiwan, they win. If they can't, the mainland government will go up in
flames. So an invasion needs to be a pretty sure thing which requires
high force superiority. The longer it takes to get across, the more US
reinforcements arrive and the harder the job gets.

Every F-22 we have forces the Chinese to buy/build 5-10 more
conventional fighters, which takes time and money. The longer it takes
for the PLA to achieve sufficient superiority, the more time everyone
has to find a political solution.

I can understan where resentment of the US comes from and it's not
entirely misplaced. But anyone who thinks a world where the current
Chinese leadership will produce a net increase in human rights is in
for a real nasty surprise.

-cwk.

[Jose]

> Every F-22 we have forces the Chinese to buy/build 5-10 more
> conventional fighters, which takes time and money. The longer it takes
> for the PLA to achieve sufficient superiority, the more time everyone
> has to find a political solution.

.... and the weaker one side gets w.r.t the other. So it's not about
finding a (political) solution, it's politics to enourage one solution
over another.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Arketip]

Icebound wrote:
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Hmmmm,
>> ...
>> As for the Raptor it is a kick butt aircraft,
>
>
> We had one once <sigh>: (search google for "avro arrow").
>
> But somebody told us to quit the program and cut up the six that existed,
> for scrap. Probably because it was 20 years ahead of anything *they* had at
> the time. So our aerospace program died overnight, and most of the
> aerospace jobs and the aerospace brains moved someplace else, guess where.
>
> The nominal reason for the program shutdown was cost, but not too many
> believe it.
>
> So don't let that happen to you, otherwise Canada might get a chance to
> start a military-aircraft program back up....with your people and your
> technology. Or maybe China will ;-).
>

Yes that was a sad end for a great aircraft!

[Jay Honeck]

> But he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express

Please. If you're going to start using bad language like that, I'm
leaving...

;-)

("Holiday Inn Express" is the perfect example of marketing prowess
overcoming awful, over-priced accommodations...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

>>But he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Please. If you're going to start using bad language like that, I'm
> leaving...
> ;-)
> ("Holiday Inn Express" is the perfect example of marketing prowess
> overcoming awful, over-priced accommodations...)

Isn't that how you got into the hotel business?

"Hey, let's get out of the newspaper business and buy a hotel!"

"Have you ever operated a hotel before?"

"No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!"

REALLY BIG :-))))

[Greg Copeland]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:12:19 +0000, Viperdoc wrote:

> I suspect the "superiority" is largely a function of better radar- the

Known as "stealth radar". Sounds wierd, but one of the new technologies
that came out of the F-22 project is the ability to actively track targets
via radar from a stealthy plane, while remaining "hidden" to enemy radar.
So yes, it is largely a function of a better radar system.

It is only known that "stealth radar" exists and is on the F-22. Exactly
what that means or how it works is not something they are openly sharing.

> ability to track more targets at the same time or from a greater distance.
> Most of these shots were probably beyond visual range AMRAAM launches, not
> 1v1 dogfighting.

This is true. Having said that, with the shoot down of a 117, enemies
have been able to get a boost in stealth technologies from the scavenged
parts. Russia is known to have their own steath program in the works, to
which parts of the downed 117 is known have have gone. Countries in
Europe are also known to have their own stealth programs underway.
Countries such as France and Russia are both known to contribute
significant technologies to rogue nations; where Iraq is a classic
example. Long story short, in a decade or two, is is possible rogue
nations will have the technology to present a real 1v1 threat. After all,
if neither side can be see on radar at range, that greatly decreases
contact range. In turn, it greatly incrases the odds where 1v1 dog
fighting becomes critical.

>
> On the other hand, if they merged, it might be a lot different fight.

I'm not sure what that means.

Greg

[Greg Copeland]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:03:45 +0200, Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:52:39 -0500, "JJS" <jschneider@remove socks
> cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>>The most amazing thing was watching the raptor fire missiles while the
>>airplane was rolling very fast. I've never seen a jet do that. The
>>ability to super cruise and the vectored thrust would make this the best
>>fighter in the world without all of the electronic wizardry and stealth
>>capability.
>
> and what are you (the USA) going to do with it? you already can have
> world domination with the military arsenal you currently have. There is
> no logic reason for even more military power.
>
> #m

That's actually not true. Technologically, our primary fighters are on
par with what is readily available around the world. And, let's not
forget that the F16, F14, and others, are available on the world market.
Let's not forget that Russia has their top technolgies on the market;
which are on par with current US offerings. Heck, even European
countries have some top notch technologies on the market. For now, the
line of deliniation is a small gap is US technology, mostly by means of
support infrastruture, and a large gap provided by superior training. Any
nation is capable of closing the training/pilot gap; especially with
Russia so willing to provide those services.

The F-22 is designed to address tomorrow's world today, not the other way
around. Do you know what the world holds in a decade from now? How about
two? China is looking to upset the world both militarily and economically
within the next decade. What will the world look like in two? China is
not exactly the nicest guys on the block.

People who say the world has no need for the F-22 need to stop looking
down at their feet and try to look over the horizon. With the BEST of
luck, the F-22 will be a huge waste of money. Remember, weapons systems
serve two roles. One, lethality. Two, deterence. If the F-22 serves
only a deterence role, it's paid back its investiment.

From a technology perspective, China is growing rapidly. In less than a
decade, China is now able to design and build their own CPUs which are on
par with Intel's Pentium; much of which was reaped from technology
publically available from places like the US and Europe. They are rapidly
closing the technology gap to build something on par with the Pentium II.
Their DSP (Digital Signal Processor) capabilities are rapidly growing as
well. In case you don't know, DSPs are used for everything from basic
radio to complex radar/sonar systems and even complex digitial encryption
communication infrastruture.

With available technology of Pentium II-class processors, China will
finally be able to create super computers in mass which are on par with
what the US had in the 70s, 80s, and even into the early 90s.
Remember, the F117 was built using 1960s technology, most of which was
done on a slide rule; thus the very odd shape. This opens the doors for
all sorts of new technolgies; radar/sonar, stealth, high energy physics,
new classes of encryption, new classes of decryption, new manufacturing
technologies, higher quality military equipment, more powerful explosives,
silent subs, etc....the list is practically endless...and they have no
shortage of labor to build on what is already available in the market
place (skills and both hard and soft technology).

Lastly, let's take a look at some numbers. Ford spent a BILLION dollars
to develop the Ford Tarus. In turn, they were able to spread their
investment over many, many, many units (I don't recall the sales figures).
The Tarus was developed in what, the early 90s? I don't know what this is
in today's inflated dollar, but I do know that's a lot of bucks on
something that is simple and VERY well understood. After all, the ICE and
automobile are fairly well understood, even in the 90s. On the other
hand, almost everthing in the F-22 is brand new, leading edge technology.
The number of units on which they can spread their development cost is
very low; in the hundreds.

The technology that comes out of the F-22 program will in turn, go into
new plane development. As a US citizen, I understand these are expensive.
It does upset me that the project seems to be growing without bounds.
Having said that, I do understand that the resulting technology will feed
into other programs for decades to come. I also understand that their
technology is helping to keep the entire world safe.


Greg

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:i%wOe.2147$k92.1847@trndny05...
> gregg wrote:
> >
> > That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You
cannot
> > count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the F-15/F-16.
>
> Well, at the present time, you can count on them flying something inferior
to
> the F-15/F-16. Given the economic situation in Russia, it doesn't look
like
> Sukhoi or MiG is going to be changing that anytime soon.

Really? When has the economic situation in Russia/USSR ever mattered much in
the past? (And, NO, 1991 is only an example that lasted barely ten years).

[Matt Barrow]

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> > "john smith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>George Patterson wrote:
> >>
> >>>gregg wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You
> >>>>cannot count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the
> >>>>F-15/F-16.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well, at the present time, you can count on them flying something
> >>>inferior to the F-15/F-16. Given the economic situation in Russia, it
> >>>doesn't look like Sukhoi or MiG is going to be changing that anytime
> >>>soon.
> >>
> >>So where can I find out how F-15/F-16/F-18 do against MiG-29, Su-31,
> >>Mirage, Eurofighter, Griffon?
> >
> >
> >
> > Well in the Desert Shield/Storm F-15s kicked the crap out of Iraqi
Mig-29s.
> > Including one kill where a 15C literally maneuvered the -29 into the
ground.
>
> That doesn't count!!!
> I mean against a pilot from a real country, one that has been trained to
> think for themselves.

That'd be England...sorta.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Please. If you're going to start using bad language like that, I'm
> leaving...

Promises, promises ...... :-)

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:28:30 +0200, Martin Hotze wrote:

> wrote:
>
>> The key here is time. If the PLA can land large numbers of troops on
>> Taiwan, they win. If they can't, the mainland government will go up in
>> flames. So an invasion needs to be a pretty sure thing which requires
>> high force superiority. The longer it takes to get across, the more US
>> reinforcements arrive and the harder the job gets.
>
>
> So you believe that US troops will help Taiwan?
>
>
> #m

Yes. As a close ally of Japan, its in our own self interest.
Furthermore, the US depends on a lot of technology goods which come out of
the Pacific Rim. Again, its in our own self interest. From what I
understand, even Japan is willing to commit significant military resources
under the primise of national security; and rightly so.

Greg

[Icebound]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Or dare we say license!!!!!!!! HAHAHA ;) I just had to!
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
> "Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>> Just yanking your chain....what's the "L" for?
>>
>> Light as in "Light Sport Aircraft", I'd guess.
>>
>> Ben Hallert
>> PP-ASEL
>>
>

Does not PP-SEL mean Private Pilot - Single Engine *Land* (as opposed to
Sea)?

So SPL would mean Sport Pilot ......?

[W P Dixon]

Very Good,
Sport Pilot Land,...but maybe I should change it to something else.
Would SP work just as well, because really I guess the land would be a give
me wouldn't it? This Sport Pilot stuff is new , I get to set my own
"standards" ! ;)

Patrick
student SP? whatever we want goes there!
aaircraft structural mech

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Or dare we say license!!!!!!!! HAHAHA ;) I just had to!
>>
>> Patrick
>> student SPL
>> aircraft structural mech
>>
>> "Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>> Just yanking your chain....what's the "L" for?
>>>
>>> Light as in "Light Sport Aircraft", I'd guess.
>>>
>>> Ben Hallert
>>> PP-ASEL
>>>
>>
>
> Does not PP-SEL mean Private Pilot - Single Engine *Land* (as opposed to
> Sea)?
>
> So SPL would mean Sport Pilot ......?
>
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

>> Please. If you're going to start using bad language like that, I'm
>> leaving...
>> ;-)
>> ("Holiday Inn Express" is the perfect example of marketing prowess
>> overcoming awful, over-priced accommodations...)
>
> Isn't that how you got into the hotel business?
>
> "Hey, let's get out of the newspaper business and buy a hotel!"
>
> "Have you ever operated a hotel before?"
>
> "No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!"
>
> REALLY BIG :-))))

Yes, but we learned how NOT to do it by staying with them...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Skywise]

Martin Hotze > wrote in
:

> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> I can understand dislike of what weapons can do. I just don't
>> understand dislike of an object that basically is just a piece of
>> metal.
>
>
> like: people kill people.
>
>> I assume that
>> you don't think that the armed cop is going to pull the gun and shoot
>> you
>
>
> na, not really.
> but force forces force. or so. (it is hard to explain in a language that
> is not your native language). There is no need for me beeing around
> weapons, because weapons are mostly there to be used, and if they are
> not used (fired) they are brought to display power. So I see (a
> theoretical) higher risk of usage. No guns no shootout. And as long as I
> can decide where I spend my time I decide to spend it not close to
> weapons.
>
>> and since you are posting in what is a technical forum that it isn't
>> going to go off on its own.
>
> technically, this might be possible to to misusage or something, but
> **** can happen everywhere.
>
> #m

When everyone starts getting along with each other, then we can
do away with weapons. When you can find a way to make everyone
get along with each other, get back to me. I'll give you this
bridge I've been trying to sell as a reward.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Icebound]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Very Good,
> Sport Pilot Land,...but maybe I should change it to something else.
> Would SP work just as well, because really I guess the land would be a
> give me wouldn't it?

Not a gimme. SP provides for adding a sea-plane rating, doesn't it?

[W P Dixon]

Yes,
Sport Pilots can get a seaplane endorsement....but just signing as SP
would just mean land would it not? Hmm So I guess maybe we won't confuse
anyone if I just keep it SPL. So I can really be technical how would I have
a tailwheel endorsement, controlled airspace, and the silly 87 knot
endorsement on the end of my SPL. Wow it'd look like I was going for a
degree or something wouldn't it!? ;) Heck maybe even one day I'll get the
seaplane on there too. Can't think of many times I would use it here in the
mountains..maybe I can land in Holston Lake and do some trout fishing?
There's a thought!

Patrick
student SPL soon to have (TW, CAS, 87K, S) ;)
aircraft structural mech

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Very Good,
>> Sport Pilot Land,...but maybe I should change it to something else.
>> Would SP work just as well, because really I guess the land would be a
>> give me wouldn't it?
>
> Not a gimme. SP provides for adding a sea-plane rating, doesn't it?
>
>
>
>
>

[George Patterson]

W P Dixon wrote:
> Yes,
> Sport Pilots can get a seaplane endorsement....but just signing as SP
> would just mean land would it not? Hmm So I guess maybe we won't confuse
> anyone if I just keep it SPL.

I think what everyone has been pussy-footing around is the fact that several
people suspect you mean "Sport Pilot License" by those initials. There's no such
thing. As is the case with all the little goodies the FAA grants, it's a
certificate.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Jose]

> As is the case with all the little goodies the FAA grants, it's a certificate.

A certificate which grants you license to fly. Even the FAA calls it a
license in some of their literature.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[W P Dixon]

Hee Hee ,
That is why I put my sport pilot license remark in the thread ! ;) I was
really wondering why it took so long to get someone to say HEY that's not a
license! But as one person had guessed, I put SPL for Sport Pilot Land. SP
would work just as well I believe because I think the Land would be assumed
by most..but SPL just sounds so dern important! ;) But for now I just have
the good old student pilot certificate. But if the funds hold out it won't
be long and I can take the student thing off there!
Just all kinds of those little certificates I need to get,..I guess next
on the list will be to go ahead and get the Airframes. Funny how I only need
it now I want my own plane!!!!! ;) Makes you wonder why there is not a
General Certificate and only the A&P? Hmmmm you take three series of test ,
seems it would be three certificates. Ah the joys of the FAA ! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:%haPe.6014$Ck2.3469@trndny04...
>W P Dixon wrote:
>> Yes,
>> Sport Pilots can get a seaplane endorsement....but just signing as SP
>> would just mean land would it not? Hmm So I guess maybe we won't confuse
>> anyone if I just keep it SPL.
>
> I think what everyone has been pussy-footing around is the fact that
> several people suspect you mean "Sport Pilot License" by those initials.
> There's no such thing. As is the case with all the little goodies the FAA
> grants, it's a certificate.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

W P Dixon wrote:
>
> Hmmmm you take three
> series of test , seems it would be three certificates.

Don't give 'em ideas.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[[email protected]]

Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:28:30 +0200, Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The key here is time. If the PLA can land large numbers of troops on
> >> Taiwan, they win. If they can't, the mainland government will go up in
> >> flames. So an invasion needs to be a pretty sure thing which requires
> >> high force superiority. The longer it takes to get across, the more US
> >> reinforcements arrive and the harder the job gets.
> >
> > So you believe that US troops will help Taiwan?

In the short term, yes. We would likely engage with air and naval
forces to prevent them from making it across the straits, and provide
support to ground forces on Taiwan. We would likely try to avoid
attacking targets on the Chinese mainland to avoid escalation, as the
PRC does have ICBMs, and we've never fought a shooting war directly
with a country that has those. If the PLA manages to make it across in
sufficient force, they might indicate their willingness to defend their
sovereign territory (which is how they see Taiwan) with said missiles.
Would we trade Los Angeles or San Francisco for Taipei? Unlikely. This
is why the first 7-14 days are critical.

The truth is that neither side in this really wants a shooting war. The
effects on the global economy are completely unpredictable and all
nations involved (US, PRC, ROC, Japan) are all highly linked
economically, with China having the most to lose if things went wrong
for them. But this is no guarantee, as a review of trade statistics
between France, the UK, and Germany prior to WWI demonstrates.

> Yes. As a close ally of Japan, its in our own self interest.
> Furthermore, the US depends on a lot of technology goods which come out of
> the Pacific Rim. Again, its in our own self interest. From what I
> understand, even Japan is willing to commit significant military resources
> under the primise of national security; and rightly so.

This is a very interesting and sensitive development. Japan has been
very quietly building a first-rate navy and air force, and could do far
more if they wished to. The powder keg in North Korea and China's
chest-thumping are pushing the Japanese out of their post-WWII pacifism
and they have the industrial plant and economy to do anything they
want.

This concerns the Chinese greatly because if they have to deal with not
only the USN/USAF but also the Japanese navy/AF then taking Taiwan is
going to be that much more fraught with peril. They are also somewhat
infuriated by this because of lingering resentment over what they see
as Japan's failure to atone for WWII atrocities. They have some point
here (and they find our friendship with Japan bewildering for the same
reason) but one begins to feel they are milking the cow a bit much at
this stage in the game.

In the long term it is clear that China would like to be the dominant
power in the Pacific rim. Ten years ago it was just us and them. Now
India and Japan are getting into the game too. It is going to be an
interesting century. We can only hope it will not be too bloody.

-cwk.

FWIW, I am not a China-hater by any means. I studied Mandarin for 4
years in college and lived in Beijing for a little while about ten
years ago.

[W P Dixon]

Heck,
I'd trade San Francisco for a beat up used to death C-150!!!!!!!!!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

> Would we trade Los Angeles or San Francisco for Taipei? Unlikely. This
> is why the first 7-14 days are critical.
>

[Morgans]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote

> That's actually not true. Technologically, our primary fighters are on
> par with what is readily available around the world.

> The F-22 is designed to address tomorrow's world today, not the other way
> around. Do you know what the world holds in a decade from now? How about
> two? China is looking to upset the world both militarily and economically
> within the next decade. What will the world look like in two? China is
> not exactly the nicest guys on the block.

Well said. I agree with perty much everything you said. Well put.
--
Jim in NC