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

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....

On Feb 5, 10:24 am, 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....

Are you ready for March when Moqtada al Sadr ends his truce?

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:24:07 -0500, Tiger
wrote:


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....

Not bloody likely.

Folks like him wish for, long for dead bodies and smoking holes to
validate their own prejudices,

The bird is now in the crucible. Now we'll find out what us taxpayers
have wrought.

Of course success will NOT quell the criticism. Reality seldom
intrudes into the zealot's consciousness.

Bravo Zulu to the Marines at the tip of the spear. They've got more
balls than any 'Net presence I've ever run accross.

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

Live fire testing of the F-22 - National Research Council (U.S.).
Committee on the Study of Live Fire Survivability Testing of the F-22
Aircraft.
either at www.nap.edu or www.nas.edu or google them

DOD did a Operational Test and Evaluation and Live Fire Test and
Evaluation Report on the V-22 Osprey in 2000.
sources:
V-22 Osprey: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker: Full Report. Center for
Defense Information.
http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/Gailliard%20on%20V-22.pdf

USNI Proceedings Magazine Issue: October 2007 Vol. 133/10/1,256 The
Osprey Goes to War
By Richard Whittle

then that ANSER V-22 study mentioned at
The short version is at http://www.navair.navy.mil/V22/index...nload&docId=29

JSF-F-35 in 2003

F-22 ooopps, can't write.....

Mike

On Feb 6, 8:14*am, 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

Yeah, they ought to go see if they can overfly Tehran.

You really are a dope, aren't you? "Screw operational common sense, if
you're not getting hit, you're not really fighting." I bet you think
they aren't real Marines if they're not charging in through the surf,
too.

On Feb 6, 10:11 am, Typhoon502 wrote:
On Feb 6, 8:14 am, 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

Yeah, they ought to go see if they can overfly Tehran.

You really are a dope, aren't you? "Screw operational common sense, if
you're not getting hit, you're not really fighting." I bet you think
they aren't real Marines if they're not charging in through the surf,
too.

The greetings committee for any overflight of Tehran. Overflight would
be a misnomer, ground inspection of the remains would be more
accurate. Remember the Iran-Contra Hawks?

AIRFORCE
SYSTEM Inventory
2005 2010

FIGHTER / ATTACK 302 302
F-4D/E / RF-4E PHANTOM 65 65
F-5E/F TIGER II 60 60
F-14 TOMCAT 25 25

F-7 (China J-7) 25 25
MiG-29A/UB 25 25

Su-25K 7 7
Su-24MK 30 30
Mirage F-1 25 25
MiG-23 FLOGGER 15 15

IIRC the Afghans knocked a similar sized box car the Hind out of the
air

On Feb 6, 10:34*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:

The greetings committee for any overflight of Tehran. Overflight would
be a misnomer, ground inspection of the remains would be more
accurate. Remember the Iran-Contra Hawks?

AIRFORCE
SYSTEM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Inventory
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2005 * *2010

FIGHTER / ATTACK * * * * * * * * * *302 * * * * 302
F-4D/E / RF-4E PHANTOM * * * * *65 * * * * * *65
F-5E/F TIGER II * * * * * * * * * * * * *60 * * * * * *60
F-14 TOMCAT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 25 * * * * * 25

F-7 (China J-7) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 25 * * * * * 25
MiG-29A/UB * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *25 * * * * * 25

Su-25K * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *7 * * * * * 7
Su-24MK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *30 * * * * 30
Mirage F-1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *25 * * * *25
MiG-23 FLOGGER * * * * * * * * * * * *15 * * * *15

IIRC the Afghans knocked a similar sized box car the Hind out of the
air

Would anyone else be shocked if Iran had 25 Tomcats flying in 2010?

Anyway, my point was that other than the occasional CSAR pickup, there
should never be circumstances where Ospreys are making any kind of
landing under fire. For that matter, if you've got any kind of
presence in a battlespace, NO aircraft should be landing under fire.
Hot LZ? Hold the troop carriers outside of the zone and soften it with
air power or artillery, and/or use one of the alternates that you
should have identified in planning.

On Feb 6, 10:46 am, Typhoon502 wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:34 am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:



The greetings committee for any overflight of Tehran. Overflight would
be a misnomer, ground inspection of the remains would be more
accurate. Remember the Iran-Contra Hawks?

AIRFORCE
SYSTEM Inventory
2005 2010

FIGHTER / ATTACK 302 302
F-4D/E / RF-4E PHANTOM 65 65
F-5E/F TIGER II 60 60
F-14 TOMCAT 25 25

F-7 (China J-7) 25 25
MiG-29A/UB 25 25

Su-25K 7 7
Su-24MK 30 30
Mirage F-1 25 25
MiG-23 FLOGGER 15 15

IIRC the Afghans knocked a similar sized box car the Hind out of the
air

Would anyone else be shocked if Iran had 25 Tomcats flying in 2010?

Anyway, my point was that other than the occasional CSAR pickup, there
should never be circumstances where Ospreys are making any kind of
landing under fire. For that matter, if you've got any kind of
presence in a battlespace, NO aircraft should be landing under fire.
Hot LZ? Hold the troop carriers outside of the zone and soften it with
air power or artillery, and/or use one of the alternates that you
should have identified in planning.

Again ask the Afghanis if they every did in a Hind while it was
landing. RPGs, mortars and 122mms would work if they always landed in
the same direction and at the same speed. Think of it as medium range
IED. Omar, the guy who sweeps the HQ, tags his cellphone and Omar's
brother and cousins drop mortar fire or RPGs on the spot. Asymmetrical
warfare.

Vince 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


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.