"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message And the gent
(mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the
bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff
distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8,
which
gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of
the
threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform
this
kind of support).

Brooks

Its a shame you didn't see the links that refute your precious
"facts(?)" brooks. In the interests of fair play...Choke on this
one...

You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assetsin a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Whoever you are, you silly little cretin...go back and read the thread. The
E-8 was 100 klicks away, and has been credited with a maximum effective GMTI
range of some 200 plus klicks in an open source (FAS). Now where does that
require the E-8 to journey into a zone of "undue risk"? It can loiter fifty
klicks to the rear of the FLOT and still support engagements 150 klicks the
other side of the FLOT, you idiotic ninny.

Brooks