"V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says"

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:50:24 +1300, Kerryn Offord
wrote:


It's not a better "truck" for the job of delivering toilet paper (VIPs
might enjoy the faster ride etc) which is all it seems to be doing
currently.

Vince has been making the claim that the V-22 has been delivering
toilet paper.

All this demonstrates is that the:
1) Has no clue about military logistics (and thus is totally
unqualified to comment on what type of aircraft is best for the
mission).
2) Has no clue about air operations in Iraq.

You see - Vince sits in a university (where the students have to
pretend to believe what he says in order to get a good grade) and as a
result feels that 'real world' information is irrelevant.

Of course Vince has a habit of pontificating on subjects he knows
nothing about. When I was in Iraq he tried to lecture me on enemy
car-bomb tactics when everything he knew about the subject came from
having lunch with an Irish policeman once.

Then he tried to lecture myself and red about Cavalry doctrine (both
myself and red served in the same Cavalry squadron about 10 years
ago).

Vince is little more than a source of amusement.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:42:58 -0500, Tiger
wrote:


Well what would you call a Ch-46 or Ch-47? Neither are expected to be
"AIRWOLF" or "Blue Thunder." Yes, it's truck. A pricey truck. But a
better truck in the long run.

Vince does not care about facts. He decided that the aircraft cannot
fly and no real world evidence can convince him otherwise.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

Colin Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:42:58 -0500, Tiger
wrote:


Well what would you call a Ch-46 or Ch-47? Neither are expected to be
"AIRWOLF" or "Blue Thunder." Yes, it's truck. A pricey truck. But a
better truck in the long run.

Vince does not care about facts. He decided that the aircraft cannot
fly and no real world evidence can convince him otherwise.


It flies, that's about it. it uses 12000 hp to lift a massive empty
weight aircraft.

its a turkey and all the crap that a 12,000 hp aircraft should be
classified as medium lift aircraft cant cover up the crap


This turkey is the same weight and HP as a Ch-53 with a small fraction
of the payload

Vince

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:14:39 -0500, Vince wrote:



If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to protected
base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to war" and
"getting the job done".

But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
the rationale for this extremely expensive truck

Just as your claims of 'flying toilet paper' are crap.

Explain to us why we should listen to you instead of the people who
actually use the aircraft?

You know so little about the subject that myself and red spent days
ridiculing you - and you never even caught on!



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

Colin Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:14:39 -0500, Vince wrote:



If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to protected
base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to war" and
"getting the job done".

But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
the rationale for this extremely expensive truck

Just as your claims of 'flying toilet paper' are crap.


1) provide list of missions and cargo in an attack environment

Explain to us why we should listen to you instead of the people who
actually use the aircraft?


2) because they are afraid to provide the above

You know so little about the subject that myself and red spent days
ridiculing you - and you never even caught on!

horse****

They are moving toilet paper and VIPS from one safe paved based to another

Feel free to provide any cites for your nonsense


Vince

Ponce wrote:

Tiger wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " wrote:



reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.


You know being a playa hater is not cool? The Anti Osprey crowd seems to
wish for any snipet of bad news. How about giving the Thunder Chickens
some credit? They have taken it to war and are getting the job done. Any
lack of firing on them again is a sign of good things. Like perhaps the
surge is really calming things over there. Exploding retarded ladies
excepted of course....


If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to protected
base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to war" and
"getting the job done".

But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
the rationale for this extremely expensive truck

Vince

do you need another block of instruction on logistics?

redc1c4,
you trotting out the same old lie doesn't make it any mre so. HTH! %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

redc1c4 wrote:
Ponce wrote:
Tiger wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " wrote:



reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.

You know being a playa hater is not cool? The Anti Osprey crowd seems to
wish for any snipet of bad news. How about giving the Thunder Chickens
some credit? They have taken it to war and are getting the job done. Any
lack of firing on them again is a sign of good things. Like perhaps the
surge is really calming things over there. Exploding retarded ladies
excepted of course....

If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to protected
base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to war" and
"getting the job done".

But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
the rationale for this extremely expensive truck

Vince

do you need another block of instruction on logistics?


I got irelevant bull**** claims

Logistics has been a subject of military study since Marius. I've
studied French German and US systems evolved since the 1860s.

you presented bull**** with a smear of terminology laid on it

feel free to provide cites, not crap

Vince

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:52:26 -0500, Vince wrote:


do you need another block of instruction on logistics?


I got irelevant bull**** claims

Logistics has been a subject of military study since Marius. I've
studied French German and US systems evolved since the 1860s.

I call BS.

If you had studied military logistics you would have noticed when me
and red began making fun of you.

In fact every one of your posts did nothing but drive home the point
that you do not have the first clue about logistics.

Liar.


--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

On Feb 5, 9:58*am, Jack Linthicum wrote:

reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.- Hide quoted text -

I'd like to see an UNCLASS T&E on how fast an F-22 really goes in full
afterburner but somehow I get the feeling that "really fast" is about
as much detail as DOD is willing to share. I imagine that you've
probably got all the detail you're going to get about the Osprey, too.
Whether you believe it or not is your problem.

On Feb 5, 6:58*am, Jack Linthicum wrote:


reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.

Well I can vouch that the testing was done, extensively for about a
decade. The article in question mentions many of the systems tested
but there were more. Many of the successful tests mentioned I
witnessed, or in some cases I actually participated in them. I will
not talk about failures or weaknesses. Every aircraft out there has
trade-offs. There are no invincible platforms that I know of. There
are always systems that are vulnerable to the golden BB. The article
does not contain any falsehoods I am aware of. It is obviously
written with a Madison Ave. bias but that does not make it untrue.
It's up to you whether you want to take my word for it Jack. I can't
provide the documents you ask for. Debriefs, read-outs come into
play.

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...