Another Ancient Military Plane Grounded

We cannot predict what kind of adversaries the U.S. will face in the
coming decades, but we do know that part of the responsibility of being
the world's "sole remaining superpower" is to be prepared for as many
contingencies as possible. One prudent way of reducing the threat is to
discourage potential adversaries from trying to match America's
advantages in numbers and technology. Replacing our faltering Eagles
with additional Raptors may be expensive, but allowing our neglect to be
exploited by those who wish us harm would be ruinous.

Thanks, John -- that article pretty well sums up my points.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote in news:b14d4f98-0740-4c7f-8165-
:

We cannot predict what kind of adversaries the U.S. will face in the
coming decades, but we do know that part of the responsibility of being
the world's "sole remaining superpower" is to be prepared for as many
contingencies as possible. One prudent way of reducing the threat is to
discourage potential adversaries from trying to match America's
advantages in numbers and technology. Replacing our faltering Eagles
with additional Raptors may be expensive, but allowing our neglect to be
exploited by those who wish us harm would be ruinous.

Thanks, John -- that article pretty well sums up my points.
--


Yes, it does. Your point is obvious. Where do you get hats to fit it
though?

Bertie

On Dec 27, 8:16*pm, Jay Honeck wrote:

Jim, did I **** in your gas tank at OSH, or what? * Apparently you
feel the need to be an asshole to hold a discussion here -- but it's
really not necessary.

While it may not be necessary,In your case, it doesnt seem to hurt

--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
Back on topic -- here is the latest on the ground of the F-15s. and
the impact it is having on our air defenses, from today's USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ded-f15s_N.htm
Ah, USA Today, that bastion of journalistic capability and integrity...

You're a funny guy, Matt. I've now produced two articles, in two
different widely respected publications, outlining and supporting my
salient points. I'm still waiting to see any evidence from you to the
contrary.

You won't like this, but the information I have is from sources that
would not want it published. So, go on believing what you want and what
USA Today publishes, but I know it isn't even close to being true as do
others here with similar inside knowledge.

Matt

You won't like this, but the information I have is from sources that
would not want it published. *So, go on believing what you want and what
USA Today publishes, but I know it isn't even close to being true as do
others here with similar inside knowledge.

Ooooooooooooo...I feel so...double-oh-seven-ish... You could tell
us, but then you'd have to kill us...?

Let's see if I've got this straight: You claim to have secret
information that disproves the events of 9/11 (as published in Vanity
Fair) *and* discounts the fact that our interception capabilities have
been marginalized by the grounding of our F-15 fleet (as published in
USA Today)?

I s'pose you know who really killed JFK, RFK, MLK, and Marilyn Monroe,
too?

C'mon, Matt -- surely you can do better than *that*!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote in news:b88b3db9-3ebf-4848-883f-
:

You won't like this, but the information I have is from sources that
would not want it published. *So, go on believing what you want and what

USA Today publishes, but I know it isn't even close to being true as do
others here with similar inside knowledge.

Ooooooooooooo...I feel so...double-oh-seven-ish...

Really? cuz you sound like an ignoramous.

And i don't mean that in a "good" way.


Bertie

In article ,
Jay Honeck wrote:

You won't like this, but the information I have is from sources that
would not want it published. *So, go on believing what you want and what
USA Today publishes, but I know it isn't even close to being true as do
others here with similar inside knowledge.

Ooooooooooooo...I feel so...double-oh-seven-ish... You could tell
us, but then you'd have to kill us...?
[snip]

C'mon, Matt -- surely you can do better than *that*!

Vulnerabilities of US military systems are usually classified. Tactics and
procedures for today's operations (including intercepts in the NAS) are at
the very least For Official Use Only (which is exempt from FOIA requests).

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Jay Honeck wrote:
You won't like this, but the information I have is from sources that
would not want it published. So, go on believing what you want and what
USA Today publishes, but I know it isn't even close to being true as do
others here with similar inside knowledge.

Ooooooooooooo...I feel so...double-oh-seven-ish... You could tell
us, but then you'd have to kill us...?

Let's see if I've got this straight: You claim to have secret
information that disproves the events of 9/11 (as published in Vanity
Fair) *and* discounts the fact that our interception capabilities have
been marginalized by the grounding of our F-15 fleet (as published in
USA Today)?

I expected this to be your reaction given your general level of paranoia
with respect to all things government. I'm not claiming that only a few
interceptors WERE launched on 9/11, I am claiming that this isn't
because that is all that COULD HAVE been launched. There is a huge
difference here that you are unable to understand or unwilling to accept.

The issue wasn't capability it was decision making, plain and simple.

Matt

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Jay Honeck wrote:

You won't like this, but the information I have is from sources that
would not want it published. So, go on believing what you want and what
USA Today publishes, but I know it isn't even close to being true as do
others here with similar inside knowledge.
Ooooooooooooo...I feel so...double-oh-seven-ish... You could tell
us, but then you'd have to kill us...?
[snip]
C'mon, Matt -- surely you can do better than *that*!

Vulnerabilities of US military systems are usually classified. Tactics and
procedures for today's operations (including intercepts in the NAS) are at
the very least For Official Use Only (which is exempt from FOIA requests).


Bob, you know that, I know that, and almost every other person posting
here seems to understand that. It is only Jay who can't comprehend that
our military has reasons for not disclosing every detail of their
capability to Vanity Fair or USA Today.

I still can't believe Jay is so gullible that he could read USA Today's
Cessna threat comment and then believe anything else in the article.
That is a level of naivete not often seen in this day and age.

Matt

The issue wasn't capability it was decision making, plain and simple.

So you're saying that we had more capable (or, at least, more)
interceptors available in the New York to DC corridor, but the command
authority decided not to launch them?

Given the short length of time they had to assess the situation, and
given the fact that the Pentagon itself was under attack, this seems
unlikely at best. In the haze of battle, not knowing the nature or
duration of the attack, I would be extraordinarily surprised if they
didn't launch everything they had.

In fact, if they *didn't* launch everything available, the conspiracy
nuts would have found out about it long ago, methinks, and had a field
day with the information.

But whatever -- we've beaten this one to death, and what we know, or
think we know, is of little consequence. All we really know is that
the F-15s are grounded until further notice, the F-16s are spread
thin, and the F-22s are too few to matter.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"