F-22 Lies

[robert arndt]

http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm

Rob

[Thomas Schoene]

robert arndt wrote:
> http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm
>

Why yes, POGO has been known to lie on ocasion. Not what I'd call a great
source. And Colonel Riccioni is far from unbiased.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> robert arndt wrote:
> > http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm
> >
>
> Why yes, POGO has been known to lie on ocasion. Not what I'd call a great
> source. And Colonel Riccioni is far from unbiased.

He (the rather odd Colonel) was apparently a bit desperate as well; his
explanation of why he concluded the F-22 was allegedly NOT stealthy was sort
of infantile (and wrong), and his conclusions regarding supercruise were
kind of weird, too.

Brooks

>
> --
> Tom Schoene

[Bjørnar]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> robert arndt wrote:
>> > http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm
>> >
>>
>> Why yes, POGO has been known to lie on ocasion. Not what I'd call a
>> great source. And Colonel Riccioni is far from unbiased.
>
> He (the rather odd Colonel) was apparently a bit desperate as well;
> his explanation of why he concluded the F-22 was allegedly NOT
> stealthy was sort of infantile (and wrong), and his conclusions
> regarding supercruise were kind of weird, too.

In what way?

Here is an interesting article on the Starfighter, speed and
maneuvering and also mentions Riccioni on the issue of supercruise:


http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm

"In his comments on the F-22, retired Colonel Everest Riccioni
(one of three legendary "Fighter Mafia" mavericks who forced
the Pentagon to produce the F-16 to improve U.S. air superiority,
who flew 55 different types of military aircraft, and worked in
the defense industry for 17 years managing aircraft programs,
including the B-2 bomber) compared it unfavorably to the F-104-19
in several categories, including supercruise range.)



Regards...

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:08:48 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>> robert arndt wrote:
>> > http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm
>> >
>>
>> Why yes, POGO has been known to lie on ocasion. Not what I'd call a great
>> source. And Colonel Riccioni is far from unbiased.
>
>He (the rather odd Colonel) was apparently a bit desperate as well; his
>explanation of why he concluded the F-22 was allegedly NOT stealthy was sort
>of infantile (and wrong), and his conclusions regarding supercruise were
>kind of weird, too.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>> --
>> Tom Schoene
>


It'll be about three seconds before Tarver shows up.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 13 Jan 2004 11:04:07 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm
>
>Rob


I started reading that and IIRC that article was beat to pieces here
several years ago.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Bjørnar" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
> > "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >> robert arndt wrote:
> >> > http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why yes, POGO has been known to lie on ocasion. Not what I'd call a
> >> great source. And Colonel Riccioni is far from unbiased.
> >
> > He (the rather odd Colonel) was apparently a bit desperate as well;
> > his explanation of why he concluded the F-22 was allegedly NOT
> > stealthy was sort of infantile (and wrong), and his conclusions
> > regarding supercruise were kind of weird, too.
>
> In what way?

From the good Colonel:

"Stealth means the proper suppression of all its important
"signatures"-Visual Signature, Radar Signature, Infrared Signature,
Electromagnetic Emissions, and Sound."

But stealth is largely mission dependent. For example, "sound" is of little
or no import to the F-22's ability to conduct its missions, while OTOH it
might be a viable consideration in developing a "stealthy" Comanche
scout/attack helicopter. He then goes on to claim that the F-22's radar
signature is "not adequately reported". Well, duh! The details he wants are
ridiculous--it would be tantamount to handing likely foes the results of the
radar signature studies so that they can fine tune or develop
countermeasures, which would hardly be considered a wise course for the USAF
to follow. Then he contradicts himself by claiming that, "Stealth operations
are night operations" immediately after attacking the F-22 for allegedly
having too large a visual signature for daylight operations...uhmmm, so his
point was? He compounds that by making the ridiculous claim that, "Its role
is in daylight"--uhmmm, no, its role will be performed around the clock.
Finally, he offers that, "Unfortunately stealth against radar invariably
increases the size of a fighter", which would be news to the folks designing
the F-35, which is a whopping seven *inches* longer than the good Colonel's
pet F-16, and with a wingspan only about three feet greater than the Viper;
the F-22 is almost identical in length to the F-15 it is replacing and its
wingspan exceeds that of the Eagle by only about two feet. He then hammers
the F-22 for allegedly having a radar that will alert "modern,
sophisticated, Russian equipment " , ignoring the fact that the F-22
integrates the radar, EW, IFF, and communications package and can regulate
their emissions according to the tactical situation (not to mention ignoring
the fact that Russian equipment has not been racking up much of a reputation
of late; witness the dismal performance of their vaunted "GPS jammers"
during OIF). And this guy supposedly knows what he is talking about? Sounds
to me more like a guy with an axe to grind and a tenuous grasp on the truth.

Oddly enough, I am no great fan of the F-22--I am one of those folks who
would be quite happy capping production at the 180-200 aircraft figure. But
in spite of my own feelings in regard tothe F-22, I don't find it very
difficult to describe the Colonel's article as a none too well prepared
"hatchet job".

Brooks

>
> Here is an interesting article on the Starfighter, speed and
> maneuvering and also mentions Riccioni on the issue of supercruise:
>
>
> http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm
>
> "In his comments on the F-22, retired Colonel Everest Riccioni
> (one of three legendary "Fighter Mafia" mavericks who forced
> the Pentagon to produce the F-16 to improve U.S. air superiority,
> who flew 55 different types of military aircraft, and worked in
> the defense industry for 17 years managing aircraft programs,
> including the B-2 bomber) compared it unfavorably to the F-104-19
> in several categories, including supercruise range.)
>
>
>
> Regards...

[robert arndt]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message t>...
> robert arndt wrote:
> > http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm
> >
>
> Why yes, POGO has been known to lie on ocasion.

Compared to Lockheed-Martin/Boeing and the USAF, that's nothing!

Not what I'd call a great
> source.

It's not the source that I'm pointing to, just the subject matter
which makes a hell of a lot of good old common sense. We were promised
something that is a LIE and face it- it needs to be accepted at face
value.

And Colonel Riccioni is far from unbiased.

The Col. paints an accurate picture and is well respected.

Rob

p.s. IMO (which is well known concerning this program) the F-22 is no
Raptor, it's a huge money-pit that we taxpayers are forced to accept.
Some of us don't accept such obscene wastes of money lightly. Every
year I keep hoping the F-22 will get the budget axe.
As for the F-35 Griffin (the most popular name so far & rumored to be
the best candidate for official title), well that's OK. A true
multi-service aircraft with excellent export potential able to perform
a variety of missions and less expensive overall. The F-22 by
comparison is a single service dog that has had to be redefined from
dedicated air-superiority(F-22) to multirole(F/A-22) and now (with
more people questioning the wisdom of purchasing both the F-22 and
F-35) all sorts of proposals are coming in: naval F-22, dedicated
strike F-22, and ridiculous bomber FB-22.
Get rid of it, it's a piece of crap anyway. R&D is fine, Threat
Analysis is fine, but wasting taxpayers money on a $150-200 mil per
unit aircraft is insane.
Europe can produce a rival at $75 mil and Russia $50 mil.

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
t>...
> > robert arndt wrote:
> > > http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm
> > >
> >
> > Why yes, POGO has been known to lie on ocasion.
>
> Compared to Lockheed-Martin/Boeing and the USAF, that's nothing!
>
> Not what I'd call a great
> > source.
>
> It's not the source that I'm pointing to, just the subject matter
> which makes a hell of a lot of good old common sense.

You have to be joking. Common sense is one of the last qualities I'd assign
to that article. His "explanation" of the F-22's alleged stealth
deficiencies is laughable.

We were promised
> something that is a LIE and face it- it needs to be accepted at face
> value.

You are as full of it as the good Colonel, apparently.

>
> And Colonel Riccioni is far from unbiased.
>
> The Col. paints an accurate picture and is well respected.

LOL! Right...

>
> Rob

<snip further rant>

[Jake McGuire]

"Bjørnar" > wrote in message >...
> Here is an interesting article on the Starfighter, speed and
> maneuvering and also mentions Riccioni on the issue of supercruise:
>
>
> http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm
>
> "In his comments on the F-22, retired Colonel Everest Riccioni
> (one of three legendary "Fighter Mafia" mavericks who forced
> the Pentagon to produce the F-16 to improve U.S. air superiority,
> who flew 55 different types of military aircraft, and worked in
> the defense industry for 17 years managing aircraft programs,
> including the B-2 bomber) compared it unfavorably to the F-104-19
> in several categories, including supercruise range.)

But how far is the F-104-19 going to supercruise when it's carrying 6
AIM-120 and two AIM-9? Which is why the F-22 is special.

-jake

[Alan Minyard]

On 14 Jan 2004 07:21:21 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message t>...
>> robert arndt wrote:
>> > http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm
>> >
>>
>> Why yes, POGO has been known to lie on ocasion.
>
>Compared to Lockheed-Martin/Boeing and the USAF, that's nothing!
>
> Not what I'd call a great
>> source.
>
>It's not the source that I'm pointing to, just the subject matter
>which makes a hell of a lot of good old common sense. We were promised
>something that is a LIE and face it- it needs to be accepted at face
>value.
>
> And Colonel Riccioni is far from unbiased.
>
>The Col. paints an accurate picture and is well respected.
>
>Rob
>
>p.s. IMO (which is well known concerning this program) the F-22 is no
>Raptor, it's a huge money-pit that we taxpayers are forced to accept.
>Some of us don't accept such obscene wastes of money lightly. Every
>year I keep hoping the F-22 will get the budget axe.
>As for the F-35 Griffin (the most popular name so far & rumored to be
>the best candidate for official title), well that's OK. A true
>multi-service aircraft with excellent export potential able to perform
>a variety of missions and less expensive overall. The F-22 by
>comparison is a single service dog that has had to be redefined from
>dedicated air-superiority(F-22) to multirole(F/A-22) and now (with
>more people questioning the wisdom of purchasing both the F-22 and
>F-35) all sorts of proposals are coming in: naval F-22, dedicated
>strike F-22, and ridiculous bomber FB-22.
>Get rid of it, it's a piece of crap anyway. R&D is fine, Threat
>Analysis is fine, but wasting taxpayers money on a $150-200 mil per
>unit aircraft is insane.
>Europe can produce a rival at $75 mil and Russia $50 mil.

It seems our own little nazi will believe anything that denigrates the US

Al Minyard

[Tarver Engineering]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On 14 Jan 2004 07:21:21 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:


> It seems our own little nazi will believe anything that denigrates the US

Now this irony is fantastic.

Real boats rock.

[Krztalizer]

>
>It seems our own little nazi will believe anything that denigrates the US
>

Every time I type something about the WWII German air force, I imagine that
folks are reading it, thinking the same thing about me. I would have
volunteered to kill each of the Nazi leadership with a fork if the opportunity
presented itself, as my wife is Jewish and my children are half Jewish, and
just on general principles. Still, I am drawn to the study of our former
enemy's aviation achievements, largely in spite of the Nazis, not because of
them.

For the same reasons, I was once quite interested in Soviet aviation. But the
level of propaganda surrounding the subject, and the loons that crow fiercely
about how supposedly superior everything Russian is supposed to be, has really
turned me off to the subject.
v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >It seems our own little nazi will believe anything that denigrates the US
> >
>
> Every time I type something about the WWII German air force, I imagine
that
> folks are reading it, thinking the same thing about me. I would have
> volunteered to kill each of the Nazi leadership with a fork if the
opportunity
> presented itself, as my wife is Jewish and my children are half Jewish,

Oh my, half Jews.

You should have a talk with your wife, about such anti-semitic speach.

[Krztalizer]

>
>Oh my, half Jews.
>
>You should have a talk with your wife, about such anti-semitic speach.
>

No, Tarver, I didn't call my kids "half jews", but thanks for the word twist.

>as my wife is Jewish and my children are half Jewish,

Since my wife's family says our kids are "half Jewish", I think I am allowed to
say the same thing. I'd discuss it with my wife, but she'll just make
additional comments about the density of the folks I talk to online.

Gordon

[Tarver Engineering]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Oh my, half Jews.
> >
> >You should have a talk with your wife, about such anti-semitic speach.

> No, Tarver, I didn't call my kids "half jews", but thanks for the word
twist.

Yes you did, the children are either Jewish, or they are not.

You sound like a NAZI, with your "relocation law" references.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >It seems our own little nazi will believe anything that denigrates the US
> >
>
> Every time I type something about the WWII German air force, I imagine
that
> folks are reading it, thinking the same thing about me. I would have
> volunteered to kill each of the Nazi leadership with a fork if the
opportunity
> presented itself, as my wife is Jewish and my children are half Jewish,
and
> just on general principles. Still, I am drawn to the study of our former
> enemy's aviation achievements, largely in spite of the Nazis, not because
of
> them.

Gordon, trust me--you are not in the same league as Arndt. You don't
presuppose that all developments with a Germanic origin are de facto
superior to any other similar products, you have not reached the startling
conclusion that the "majority" of Americans are "German-Americans", nor do
you go to idiotic extremes to claim a germanic origin for everything
developed since the wheel (and Arndt will likely claim that as a Teutonic
achievement as well. In fact, most of your posts are pretty well worded and
well supported, except for that time you claimed armor has no role in the
urban fight...but we'll forgive that as a momentary lapse... :)

>
> For the same reasons, I was once quite interested in Soviet aviation. But
the
> level of propaganda surrounding the subject, and the loons that crow
fiercely
> about how supposedly superior everything Russian is supposed to be, has
really
> turned me off to the subject.

The Russians have quite a lot to be proud of in terms of their aviation
acheivements, but like you I have found that the subject has been
opverwhelmed by a few of thier more vocal proponents who have an apparent
inferiority complex that compels them to exaggerate their accomplishments in
a generally vain effort to convince us that they remain on the very
forefront of the field despite ample evidence otherwise.

Brooks

> v/r
> Gordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR
>
> Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos
to a
> reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.
>

[Kyle Boatright]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Krztalizer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > >Oh my, half Jews.
> > >
> > >You should have a talk with your wife, about such anti-semitic speach.
>
> > No, Tarver, I didn't call my kids "half jews", but thanks for the word
> twist.
>
> Yes you did, the children are either Jewish, or they are not.
>
> You sound like a NAZI, with your "relocation law" references.


Congratulations, John. I think you've reached a new low.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Krztalizer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > >Oh my, half Jews.
> > > >
> > > >You should have a talk with your wife, about such anti-semitic
speach.
> >
> > > No, Tarver, I didn't call my kids "half jews", but thanks for the word
twist.
> >
> > Yes you did, the children are either Jewish, or they are not.
> >
> > You sound like a NAZI, with your "relocation law" references.

> Congratulations, John. I think you've reached a new low.

My oldest daughter is a Jew, Krztalizer needs to clean up his hate speach.

There is no such thing as half Jewish.

[Magnus Redin]

Hi!

robert arndt wrote:
> As for the F-35 Griffin (the most popular name so far & rumored to be
> the best candidate for official title), well that's OK.

Has Saab:s JAS 39 Gripen given you so much inspiration?

> A true multi-service aircraft with excellent export potential able
> to perform a variety of missions and less expensive overall.

And you are also inspired by Saab:s salesmen. :-)

Seriously, is F-35 designed with the same kind of multi role thinking
as Gripen? I know that F-35 is three major versions in one, Gripen has
no naval or VTOL version. What I would like to know is if F-35 will
switch between fighter, attack and recionnance missions as fast as the
stores can be changed or during a single mission.

> and ridiculous bomber FB-22. Get rid of it, it's a piece of crap
> anyway.

What is rediculous about it? Seems reasonable compared with F-15E and
F-111. And reusing the F-22 avionics and a lot of the mechanical
design as the F16-XL did compred with the F-16 should save a lot of
money. The alternatives if you need more heavy attack aircraft or
bombers should be to restart B-2 production or design a new one from
scratch and both alternatives are expensive.

Best regards,
--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

[Krztalizer]

> trust me--you are not in the same league

LOL well, if I start to drift, oar-slap me before I make myself look
ridiculous!

>In fact, most of your posts are pretty well worded and
>well supported, except for that time you claimed armor has no role in the
>urban fight...but we'll forgive that as a momentary lapse..

Ack! Like Jacob Marley, I have links of chain made from such mistakes dragging
behind me. What can ya do?

>
>The Russians have quite a lot to be proud of in terms of their aviation
>acheivements,

Agree - I would have had no fun at all in this life if it hadn't been for ol'
Igor. Bless em.

>like you I have found that the subject has been
>opverwhelmed by a few of thier more vocal proponents who have an apparent
>inferiority complex that compels them to exaggerate their accomplishments in
>a generally vain effort to convince us that they remain on the very
>forefront of the field despite ample evidence otherwise.

Certainly takes away from their allure.

G

[Krztalizer]

>> >You should have a talk with your wife, about such anti-semitic speach.
>
>> No, Tarver, I didn't call my kids "half jews", but thanks for the word
>twist.
>
>Yes you did, the children are either Jewish, or they are not.

NO, I DIDN'T, and even where you quoted me directly, I never said they are
"half-Jews" as you incorrectly attributed to me. Geez, grab a whiff of reality
- these are MY kids and I wouldn't be insulting them.

>You sound like a NAZI, with your "relocation law" references.

I never mentioned a word about "relocation law" in any post I have made in my
8+ years online, ya big idiot.

Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >> >You should have a talk with your wife, about such anti-semitic speach.
> >
> >> No, Tarver, I didn't call my kids "half jews", but thanks for the word
twist.
> >
> >Yes you did, the children are either Jewish, or they are not.
>
> NO, I DIDN'T, and even where you quoted me directly, I never said they are
> "half-Jews" as you incorrectly attributed to me. Geez, grab a whiff of
reality
> - these are MY kids and I wouldn't be insulting them.

You are refering to your children in a manner consistent with automatic
relocation, under Reich Law. It is offensive.

If you have no respect for your own children, at least have some respect for
those the Germans murdered.

[Krztalizer]

>
>My oldest daughter is a Jew, Krztalizer needs to clean up his hate speach.
>
>There is no such thing as half Jewish.
>

I am not Jewish, my wife is Jewish. One half of each. Use semantics to make
yourself sound holier than Mao if you want, but my use of the term 'half
Jewish' was in no way related to anything the f*ing Nazis used as a term. I
somehow believe they used a German/Deutsche word anyway, so perhaps the "hate
speech" is just voices in your head. I love my kids and I know I was not
intending any sort of slight against them, so bite me. I married a woman in
the Jewish faith, so whatever you invent as about my motives doesn't hold water
- I could care less what religion ANYONE is and as long as it doesn't advocate
hurting other people, I don't give a crap one way or other about any religion
at all.

"Hate speech" is when you take my innocuous 'my children are half Jewish'
comment and twisting it to say I called them "half-jews" (notice the change? I
do.). That's hate speech, so perhaps you can consider cleaning up your own.

But let me get this straight - when my father in law (Russian-Polish Jew) says
that his grandkids are 'half Jewish' (he leaves off the fact that I am full
Russian and contributed somewhat), I am supposed to be offended and accuse him
of being a Nazi and using "hate speech"? Amazing, John. Enlighten me on how I
am supposed to correct him - do I first accuse him of being a Nazi? Or do I
modify what he says to make it "Half-Jew" first?

Gordon

[Krztalizer]

>You are refering to your children in a manner consistent with automatic
>relocation, under Reich Law.

You know something I didn't - I never bothered to learn Reich Law. Is there a
listing somewhere that has a list of English words and combinations that you
equate to wartime German terms, that are offensive? That would help in the
future.

>It is offensive.

Can you perhaps show me something that shows the German law included the
verbatim English words I used, that you find so offensive? Or perhaps you are
being an ass at my expense?

>If you have no respect for your own children, at least have some respect for
>those the Germans murdered.

I have equal respect for both. I would not intentionally use a German wartime
term for either my children nor the honored dead, contrary to your best efforts
to portray it that way.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >My oldest daughter is a Jew, Krztalizer needs to clean up his hate
speach.
> >
> >There is no such thing as half Jewish.
> >
>
> I am not Jewish, my wife is Jewish. One half of each.

Children with Jewish mothers are traditionally Jews.

> Use semantics to make
> yourself sound holier than Mao if you want, but my use of the term 'half
> Jewish' was in no way related to anything the f*ing Nazis used as a term.

This thread branch is about accusing Robert of being a NAZI. Here you are
using speech that is offensive and NAZI. You might want to consider your
children's feelings, should you come in contact with other Jews. Some Jews
will become violently angry, when hearing the terms quarter Jew and half
Jew. For these were the first to be relocated to what we now call
deathcamps, or just shot in the head. Relocation was the NAZI politically
correct way of refering to eugenics.

I am not trying to be mean to you, just educate you.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >You are refering to your children in a manner consistent with automatic
> >relocation, under Reich Law.
>
> You know something I didn't - I never bothered to learn Reich Law. Is
there a
> listing somewhere that has a list of English words and combinations that
you
> equate to wartime German terms, that are offensive? That would help in
the
> future.

I just know this one because of my afiliation with Jews and their unpleasant
reaction to the idea that any person can be part Jewish. Being that you
have a Jewish wife, you are likely to be in a situation where you will
eventually interact with other Jews.

> >It is offensive.
>
> Can you perhaps show me something that shows the German law included the
> verbatim English words I used, that you find so offensive? Or perhaps you
are
> being an ass at my expense?

What you said would be a death sentence for your children, under Reich Law.

> >If you have no respect for your own children, at least have some respect
for
> >those the Germans murdered.
>
> I have equal respect for both. I would not intentionally use a German
wartime
> term for either my children nor the honored dead, contrary to your best
efforts
> to portray it that way.

If you had listened to begin with, your education could have been easier. I
don't want you to hurt your inlaw's feelings, or anyone else you might meet.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >You are refering to your children in a manner consistent with automatic
> >relocation, under Reich Law.
>
> You know something I didn't - I never bothered to learn Reich Law. Is
there a
> listing somewhere that has a list of English words and combinations that
you
> equate to wartime German terms, that are offensive? That would help in
the
> future.
>

[eerie music background required] Come to the light, Gordon...come to the
light. Killfile the Tarvernaut and be free of his inane (and usually insane)
rambling rants. If it does not fill your inner soul with peace, it'll at
least prevent you from punching a hole through your monitor. Maybe if enough
folks follow this approach he'll give up and go away.

Brooks

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> [eerie music background required] Come to the light, Gordon...come to the
> light. Killfile the Tarvernaut and be free of his inane (and usually
insane)
> rambling rants. If it does not fill your inner soul with peace, it'll at
> least prevent you from punching a hole through your monitor. Maybe if
enough
> folks follow this approach he'll give up and go away.

The irony being the Mary has posted that this kevin Brooks creep is in her
killfile and there is no nicer person on the newsgroup.

[John R Weiss]

"Krztalizer" > wrote...
>
> Can you perhaps show me something that shows the German law included the
> verbatim English words I used, that you find so offensive? Or perhaps you are
> being an ass at my expense?

It is extremely unlikely Tarver can or will back up his claims -- he almost
never can.

He is "being and ass at [your] expense" because that is what he does for fun.
It's best to just recognize tarver for the pitiful thing he is, and don't let
him eat at you.

If you want to joust with him, do it for solely for the entertainment value;
it's not worth much even then, though...

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:W3lNb.67733$8H.107386@attbi_s03...
> "Krztalizer" > wrote...
> >
> > Can you perhaps show me something that shows the German law included the
> > verbatim English words I used, that you find so offensive? Or perhaps
you are
> > being an ass at my expense?
>
> It is extremely unlikely Tarver can or will back up his claims -- he
almost
> never can.

LOL

The irony is so rich.

[Krztalizer]

>> >There is no such thing as half Jewish.
>> >
>>
>> I am not Jewish, my wife is Jewish. One half of each.
>
>Children with Jewish mothers are traditionally Jews.

My wife, born of a Russian-Polish Jew and his wife, an Englishwoman. My wife
describes herself as "half Jewish", exactly as my father in law describes my
children.

>
>This thread branch is about accusing Robert of being a NAZI. Here you are
>using speech that is offensive and NAZI.

Offensive to whom? If my children's mother and her Jewish family have never
gotten offended, it sounds to me like you have deputized yourself as the PC
police.


>Some Jews
>will become violently angry, when hearing the terms quarter Jew and half
>Jew.

Luckily, I never called my children "half Jew" or "quarter Jew" - which I can
see would be insulting given their experience with 'Reich Law'.

>
>I am not trying to be mean to you, just educate you.
>

Alright - then I'll bounce this off my inlaws and ask if we've been doing this
wrong for the past several years. Odd that not a single other person of the
Jewish faith has jumped to agree with you - but if one did, I would accept
whatever term is "PC" for children of Jewish ancestry that has been thoroughly
mixed through the human gene pool.

>Being that you
>have a Jewish wife, you are likely to be in a situation where you will
>eventually interact with other Jews.

I interact with Jewish folks every day of my life - never a problem. Ever. So
far today, three emails from Jewish friends telling me I didn't do anything
wrong - its not as if goys are expected to know every aspect of Jewish history,
right down to buzzwords not used in over half a century.

>> >It is offensive.
>>
>> Can you perhaps show me something that shows the German law included the
>> verbatim English words I used, that you find so offensive? Or perhaps you
>are
>> being an ass at my expense?
>
>What you said would be a death sentence for your children, under Reich Law.

Which is irrelevent in SO many ways. I don't go around using Reich Law or its
terms - I was using standard English as it is used in America today.

>> >If you have no respect for your own children, at least have some respect
>for
>> >those the Germans murdered.
>>
>> I have equal respect for both. I would not intentionally use a German
>wartime
>> term for either my children nor the honored dead, contrary to your best
>efforts
>> to portray it that way.
>
>If you had listened to begin with, your education could have been easier. I
>don't want you to hurt your inlaw's feelings, or anyone else you might meet.

Then I promise not to quote Reich law at them, because _that_ would be
insulting.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Krztalizer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > >Oh my, half Jews.
> > > >
> > > >You should have a talk with your wife, about such anti-semitic speach.
> >
> > > No, Tarver, I didn't call my kids "half jews", but thanks for the word
> > twist.
> >
> > Yes you did, the children are either Jewish, or they are not.
> >
> > You sound like a NAZI, with your "relocation law" references.
>
> Congratulations, John. I think you've reached a new low.

He just bought a new shovel and just *had* to try it out.

[B2431]

>From: (Krztalizer)
>Date: 1/14/2004 3:39 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>> >You should have a talk with your wife, about such anti-semitic speach.
>>
>>> No, Tarver, I didn't call my kids "half jews", but thanks for the word
>>twist.
>>
>>Yes you did, the children are either Jewish, or they are not.
>
>NO, I DIDN'T, and even where you quoted me directly, I never said they are
>"half-Jews" as you incorrectly attributed to me. Geez, grab a whiff of
>reality
>- these are MY kids and I wouldn't be insulting them.
>
>>You sound like a NAZI, with your "relocation law" references.
>
>I never mentioned a word about "relocation law" in any post I have made in my
>8+ years online, ya big idiot.
>
>Gordon
><====(A+C====>
> USN SAR
>
Excuse me, I must defend tarver on this, he is not a "big idiot." No part of
his anatomy can be referred to as big.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >> >There is no such thing as half Jewish.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I am not Jewish, my wife is Jewish. One half of each.
> >
> >Children with Jewish mothers are traditionally Jews.
>
> My wife, born of a Russian-Polish Jew and his wife, an Englishwoman. My
wife
> describes herself as "half Jewish", exactly as my father in law describes
my
> children.

That probably works for those decendants of what were second class citizens
in Russia.

You are welcome to use the N word and half Jew slurs at home, just keep your
hate speech out of ram.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Terry Lee Davis" > wrote in message
...
> On 13 Jan 2004 11:04:07 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm
> >
> >Rob
>
> Always wondered how the Northrop YF-23 lost out, as it looked like a
> more stealthy design. But then, Lockheed seems to have an "in" with
> the Pentagon.

Northrop had gone through a period of shooting themselves in the foot, much
like Boeing D-8 today.

[Grantland]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
>> >> >There is no such thing as half Jewish.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I am not Jewish, my wife is Jewish. One half of each.
>> >
>> >Children with Jewish mothers are traditionally Jews.
>>
>> My wife, born of a Russian-Polish Jew and his wife, an Englishwoman. My
>wife
>> describes herself as "half Jewish", exactly as my father in law describes
>my
>> children.
>
>That probably works for those decendants of what were second class citizens
>in Russia.
>
>You are welcome to use the N word and half Jew slurs at home, just keep your
>hate speech out of ram.
>
**** you, dirty JIGGER! Dirty, smelly JIGGER!!

wally

[Alan Minyard]

On 14 Jan 2004 18:41:48 GMT, (Krztalizer) wrote:

>>
>>It seems our own little nazi will believe anything that denigrates the US
>>
>
>Every time I type something about the WWII German air force, I imagine that
>folks are reading it, thinking the same thing about me. I would have
>volunteered to kill each of the Nazi leadership with a fork if the opportunity
>presented itself, as my wife is Jewish and my children are half Jewish, and
>just on general principles. Still, I am drawn to the study of our former
>enemy's aviation achievements, largely in spite of the Nazis, not because of
>them.
>
>For the same reasons, I was once quite interested in Soviet aviation. But the
>level of propaganda surrounding the subject, and the loons that crow fiercely
>about how supposedly superior everything Russian is supposed to be, has really
>turned me off to the subject.
>v/r
>Gordon
><====(A+C====>
> USN SAR
>
>Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
>reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

Gordon

Your posts deal with facts, our resident nazi's deal with fantastic myths. That is,
to me, a great difference. I have never seen a post from you that advocated
nazi policies, but Arndt revels in nazism.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:06:18 GMT, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:

>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Krztalizer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >
>> > >Oh my, half Jews.
>> > >
>> > >You should have a talk with your wife, about such anti-semitic speach.
>>
>> > No, Tarver, I didn't call my kids "half jews", but thanks for the word
>> twist.
>>
>> Yes you did, the children are either Jewish, or they are not.
>>
>> You sound like a NAZI, with your "relocation law" references.
>
>
>Congratulations, John. I think you've reached a new low.
>
>
Well said.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On 14 Jan 2004 21:58:22 GMT, (Krztalizer) wrote:

>>You are refering to your children in a manner consistent with automatic
>>relocation, under Reich Law.
>
>You know something I didn't - I never bothered to learn Reich Law. Is there a
>listing somewhere that has a list of English words and combinations that you
>equate to wartime German terms, that are offensive? That would help in the
>future.
>
>>It is offensive.
>
>Can you perhaps show me something that shows the German law included the
>verbatim English words I used, that you find so offensive? Or perhaps you are
>being an ass at my expense?
>
Tarver is just a general ass, not usually targeted at any individual. However,
in this case, his lunacy has achieved new heights.

Al Minyard

[Krztalizer]

>That probably works for those decendants of what were second class citizens
>in Russia.

Soo, even though "that probably works" for my family, in your pompous,
self-centered universe, its still a terrible wrong...?

>You are welcome to use the N word and half Jew slurs at home, just keep your
>hate speech out of ram.

Thanks for your permission, but I don't use the N word at home or anywhere
else, asshole. Not surprisingly, I don't use "half Jew slurs" either. Half
Jewish and "HALF JEW" is two different terms - one that describes my kids, the
other that is an insulting racial slur and a quote from racial purity laws, and
as such, its a term I would never use. Anything else you want to make up and
try to attribute to me..?

So far, the only person on RAM quoting Reich Law and the term "half Jew" is
YOU. I have not and would not, because I would place that term squarely in the
context of the Nazis.

Go act wounded and pompous someplace else - I KNOW I didn't use a Nazi term,
and I know YOU did, so who is using hate speech? You, Tarver - only you.

I talked to my wife about your comments last night and guess what? Its
unanimous. "What an ass."

And that sums up why I am adding you to the bit bin, again - nothing that I
read that comes from you is educational or entertaining and this current rant,
baseless as far as I can tell (notice the complete and total silence from other
folks that, according to you, should be outraged by what only you consider to
be hate speech..?). Go practice you own manners before you try to correct
someone else - and don't quote Reich Law at someone with loved ones of Jewish
ancestry when you are attempting to hold the moral high ground.

To sum up: I never called my kids "half Jew" - you did. I didn't in any way
quote Reich Law - you did. I didn't use the N word, even when you tried to
interject it into our conversation. I don't use racial slurs in my speech or
correspondence and NO ONE has backed you up that I did.

Good bye, for the last time, John. Go act outraged at someone else.

Gordon

[Krztalizer]

>
>Gordon

>I have never seen a post from you that advocated
>nazi policies, but Arndt revels in nazism.
>
>Al Minyard
>
>
>
>
>
>


<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Krztalizer]

oops - I meant to type, "thanks, Al" before I hit send, not after LOL

Gordon

[Tarver Engineering]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >That probably works for those decendants of what were second class
citizens
> >in Russia.
>
> Soo, even though "that probably works" for my family, in your pompous,
> self-centered universe, its still a terrible wrong...?

You will find that such a mindset will harm your children later on.

[John S. Shinal]

(Krztalizer) wrote:

>yourself sound holier than Mao if you want

LOL - I'm stealing that one and claiming it as my own !
Brilliant !



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Krztalizer]

>
>>yourself sound holier than Mao if you want
>
> LOL - I'm stealing that one and claiming it as my own !
>Brilliant !
>

Heh. :) I couldn't think of a way to conjugate "thou" into the sentence, to
make it work, sooo.

G

[Tarver Engineering]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >>yourself sound holier than Mao if you want
> >
> > LOL - I'm stealing that one and claiming it as my own !
> >Brilliant !
> >
>
> Heh. :) I couldn't think of a way to conjugate "thou" into the
sentence, to
> make it work, sooo.

Thou art holier than Mao.

[Paul F Austin]

"Krztalizer" > wrote
> >
> >My oldest daughter is a Jew, Krztalizer needs to clean up his hate
speach.
> >
> >There is no such thing as half Jewish.
> >
>
> I am not Jewish, my wife is Jewish. One half of each. Use semantics to
make
> yourself sound holier than Mao if you want, but my use of the term 'half
> Jewish' was in no way related to anything the f*ing Nazis used as a term.
I
> somehow believe they used a German/Deutsche word anyway, so perhaps the
"hate
> speech" is just voices in your head. I love my kids and I know I was not
> intending any sort of slight against them, so bite me. I married a woman
in
> the Jewish faith, so whatever you invent as about my motives doesn't hold
water
> - I could care less what religion ANYONE is and as long as it doesn't
advocate
> hurting other people, I don't give a crap one way or other about any
religion
> at all.

Without any ill will toward you or your family, most Jews consider the
children of a Jewish mother to be Jewish.

[Krztalizer]

>
>Without any ill will toward you or your family, most Jews consider the
>children of a Jewish mother to be Jewish.
>

I appreciate the input, Paul. My wife is all a bit bewildered by this
discussion and has asked that I let it drop - with her feelings uppermost in
mind, I'm going to try to not think about this any more. :)

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[B2431]

>From: (Krztalizer)
>Date: 1/15/2004 3:38 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>>>yourself sound holier than Mao if you want
>>
>> LOL - I'm stealing that one and claiming it as my own !
>>Brilliant !
>>
>
>Heh. :) I couldn't think of a way to conjugate "thou" into the sentence,
>to
>make it work, sooo.
>
>G
>
>I think my cat was Chicom. He kept saying Mao. He located mice by finding Mao
Tse Dung

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Without any ill will toward you or your family, most Jews consider the
> >children of a Jewish mother to be Jewish.
> >
>
> I appreciate the input, Paul. My wife is all a bit bewildered by this
> discussion and has asked that I let it drop - with her feelings uppermost
in
> mind, I'm going to try to not think about this any more. :)

Better still, you should apologise, Krztalizer. Try and move away from that
old Soviet Jew hating way and learn the ways of a free society.

[WaltBJ]

Whew! Just had a dogfight trying to get my password accepted by
GooGroups. Turned out my browser's anticookie setting was too high.
Hell of a note when you gotta accept a cookie to log on. Oh well it
won't be there very long heh heh.
I read Riccioni's paper. Having flown the 104A Dash 19 I wonder just
what sort of supercruise it had in full military at the tropopause.
Since it would accelerate to 1.05 at 25,000 in military perhaps at 1.4
(getting there in AB)where the ram effect and the shock cone effect
starts kicking in, maybe it could sustain 1.4 in military. Maybe. I
regret not thinking of running 'speed bleed' tests back thnen but we
were using the airplane, not testing it. Since three of our airplanes
went to Edwards, perhaps Mary knows some of the pilots - and could
find out if they ever did any tests to see if the bird could
supercruise.
BTW Riccioni tends to overexaggerate for emphasis. I remember reading
his papers back in the lightweight fighter controversy. What he says
does not gibe with what I read in AW&ST F22 flight test articles.
The crticism of the 22's IR signature in supercruise is valid if the
22 continues into the threat area supercruising. It doesn't apply if
the 22 slows to lower the signature. The supercruise is of value if
the arena is say five hundred miles away......
LPI AI radar and using intermittent momentary sweeps reduces the
chance of enemy location of the 22 - or any other AI fighter, for that
matter. Considering that the arena will be filled with radar clutter
the chance of getting a fix on anyone just searching is tough enough.
If the oppo is dumb enough to spotlight a target, yes, he can be
detected easily. But if you only come up for a couple sweeps and then
go to standby for say fifteen seconds before coming up for another
couple sweeps - it's a tough problem. The ability to 'freeze' the
scope picture is an outstanding mod.
As for the visual signature - get real. The best 'eyeball' guys I ever
knew - and that is a total number of 2 in 22 years of flying fighters
in eleven fighter squadrons - could spot a 104 coming head-on at about
10 miles. Even a Sparrow could rattle their cage about the time they
were figuring out what to do next. I remember the lightweight fighter
guys throwing fits at the idea of AI radar in a fighter. I got the
impression they thought all wars would be fought in the desert during
the day time with guns and just possibly old AIM9B Sidewinders.
WHo are we going to fight that will require yhe 22 and 35? Considering
they will be around at least as long as the 14,15,16 - be my guest.
Their opposition will be the bad guys' next generation, people.
Oh, yes. Tarver, be nice for once!
Walt BJ

[Tarver Engineering]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...

> Oh, yes. Tarver, be nice for once!

Ed wants to raise the level of discussion and I am willing to let him try.

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
>> >That probably works for those decendants of what were second class
>citizens
>> >in Russia.
>>
>> Soo, even though "that probably works" for my family, in your pompous,
>> self-centered universe, its still a terrible wrong...?
>
>You will find that such a mindset will harm your children later on.
>
Cut it out John...just quit it now..
--

-Gord.

[Buzzer]

On 16 Jan 2004 13:14:42 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

>As for the visual signature - get real. The best 'eyeball' guys I ever
>knew - and that is a total number of 2 in 22 years of flying fighters
>in eleven fighter squadrons - could spot a 104 coming head-on at about
>10 miles. Even a Sparrow could rattle their cage about the time they
>were figuring out what to do next.

Then Col. Olds at a maintenace meeting Ubon early 1967 said something
along the lines and crew chiefs clean the canopy good because a bug
speck might look like a mig in the distance.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >That probably works for those decendants of what were second class
> >citizens
> >> >in Russia.
> >>
> >> Soo, even though "that probably works" for my family, in your pompous,
> >> self-centered universe, its still a terrible wrong...?
> >
> >You will find that such a mindset will harm your children later on.
> >
> Cut it out John...just quit it now..

Krztalizer needs to move beyond his Soviet style thinking and join the free
world.

[Twoashes]

> Europe can produce a rival at $75 mil and Russia $50 mil.

Sure, that's why they've done it, right? And the Chinese don't build
aircraft carriers because they just don't feel like it. And I have a
bridge in the desert you might be interested in buying.

[Felger Carbon]

"Twoashes" > wrote in message
om...
>
> And I have a
> bridge in the desert you might be interested in buying.

Geez. The folks in that desert retirement community (NV or AZ, I
forget) that imported an old bridge that they bought from the city of
London, England are selling it already?

Must have been a lemon. ;-)

[Guy Alcala]

WaltBJ wrote:

<snip>

> As for the visual signature - get real. The best 'eyeball' guys I ever
> knew - and that is a total number of 2 in 22 years of flying fighters
> in eleven fighter squadrons - could spot a 104 coming head-on at about
> 10 miles.

With that kind of eyesight, one presumes they spent their spare time
perched on top of light poles, trees or cliffs ;-)


> Even a Sparrow could rattle their cage about the time they
> were figuring out what to do next.

Depends on the radar. My Zipper aficionado friend's friend, the late Tom
Delashaw, flew in the Navy maneuvering target tests against F-4Bs in his
F-104C model. Head-on, the F-4s were normally unable to get a lock until
inside min.AIM-7E range (IIRR, max. contact range achieved was 18nm), if
they achieved one at all, and usually Tom had long since tallied them.
IIRC, not a single valid AIM-7 shot was called against him. But that's
against a 1950s vintage pure pulse radar (APQ-72; the F-4C's APQ-100 was
similar except for the bombing strobe), with the original "forget using
it in a dogfight" switchology; mounted on an airframe/engine combo
renowned for the amount of smoke it produced; a missile with a large
minimum range and '4 potato' speedgate settling time; and with the Zipper
pilot being a FWS grad who knew when to use ground clutter (no RWR on his
a/c at the time).

> I remember the lightweight fighter
> guys throwing fits at the idea of AI radar in a fighter. I got the
> impression they thought all wars would be fought in the desert during
> the day time with guns and just possibly old AIM9B Sidewinders.

More like they thought that for the foreseeable future IFF wouldn't allow
many BVR shots, and the AIM-7s' reliability was unlikely to ever be all
that much better, so it and its required radar/systems werent worth the
cost in money, weight and performance. In short, they foresaw Vietnam
conditions applying for some time, where the overwhelming majority of
AIM-7 kills were WVR maneuvering shots that could have been taken by a far
less expensive IRM, if the air force had had an AIM-9 with the minimum
range, launch G and turn performance of the AIM-7E2 (the pre-production
AIM-9J only got into combat in August 1972). Virtually all the true BVR
shots in VN were Combat Tree, usually at night. From comments I've read
by Bitburg Eagle pilots in the late -'70s, they tended to agree that the
gun and AIM-9J/P/L were going to be their primary armament if the Red
Hordes attacked, as they were less than confident in the AIM-7F (aka "The
Great White Hope"), and they figured the picture would be far too confused
in any case for them to just lock and launch because that guy doesn't have
the right squawk. Given the near own goals in DS, and the "oops" post-DS
facing far less numerous and mopre poorly EW-equipped foes than the
WarPact hordes, I'd say they were right.

AFAIK we never scored a kill with the AIM-7F (I'm not sure if the head-on
look-up launches from F-14s against MiG-23s in the Gulf of Sidra in the
mid-80s were -7F or -7M, but I'm sure that they both missed), although the
Israelis presumably had. AIM-7M seems to have been a fair amount better,
but even there the pK doesn't appear anywhere near as high as the
contemporary AIM-9's.

I do think they went a bit overboard with just wanting a ranging radar,
but given AWACS and F-15s it may well have been justifiable as an
acceptable method of keeping the cost down (numbers) and performance up.
An AI radar certainly wasn't essential, just nice to have (weighed against
extra weight, cost, maintenance and training time). I'm not sure if that
was a consensus view of the LWF Mafia, or if most of them thought
something like a later F-5E's APQ-159 (the one with angle-track; the
earlier APQ-153 only had range track) would be the thing. But once a
light, small multimode PD radar came along in the form of the APG-66, it
made sense to put it in, at least in the context of the USAF requiring the
F-16 to take over the multi-role mission from the F-4 (and F-15), instead
of using it for the long range air superiority mission for which it was
designed, and where the multi-mode capability was extra weight. It was
the mission switch and the associated weight/cost growth that the Mafia,
especially Boyd, hated. Once the decision had been made, Boyd did his
best to get the USAF to increase the wing area to 320 sq.ft. instead of
300 (from the YF-16's 280) to maintain Ps at the heavier weight, but
failed.

Guy

[WaltBJ]

The biggest problem with the Navy F4s' radar was the way they landed.
That controlled crash didn't help their radars at all. At Da Nang I
had a Navy troop in my back seat on a night mission over Laos. He was
impressed by our old F4D radar (1972) and the way it could see tankers
at 75 miles over land. I expressed wonder as I knew he was flying F4S
aircraft. He replied that after about 4 carrier 'arrivals' the radar
wasn't so hot anymore. Along that same vein, neither TAC nor 7AF gave
radar (and missile) maintenance/TLC enough emphasis. After 9 years
flying the F86D and F102 I knew what good radar could do. But getting
good radar requires a high quality of aircrew knowledge, strict
adherence to maintenance by the book (no TLAR tweaking), sharp radar
technicians and precise fault writeups and trouble shooting. Both TAC
and 7AF were more interested in flying aircraft than fixing radars.
FWIW our F102 radar at the 326 FIS at RG AFB (KC, MO) was as good as
the F4D's radar. 30-45 miles on a T33, 75-125 miles on a KC135/707.
As for those sharp-eyed pilots - my eyes were then 20-15 - theirs were
markedly better. When GCI called '10 miles' on a head-on engagement I
used to lean forward so I could see better out to both sides - pretty
soon I'd see either Howie or Joe cocked up in a hard turn into my six
and the fun would begin.
Our very lightweight ASG14 on the 104A could see another 104 at 14
miles - and two radar mechs could pick up the set and carry it to the
airplane. That left the scope and the ballistics computer to be
carried by another man.
Even back then a fighter with only a ranging radar was a day VFR
fighter that better stay on the ground if there were any significant
amount of clouds in the sky - like over Europe most of the time. And
essentially worthless at night. We in the 319FIS would just shake our
heads when we read their ill-considered vituperations. BTW John Bond
was one of my instructor pilots when I went through the F86F Sabre
school at Nellis in 1954.
Walt BJ