Raptor vs Eagle

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.

"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....rticle8772.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

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

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.

"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.

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.

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

Patrick, just what is a "student SPL"?

Bob Moore

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
news
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 ;-).

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.

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....rticle8772.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