Boeing Awarded Contract For Next-Generation Harpoon Block III Missile

Clark wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: Clark wrote:
:
::Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
::
:: "Dean A. Markley" wrote:
::[snip]
:::
:::A quick search reveals the following:
:::
::
:: Should have searched a bit slower. Let me correct:
::
::
::Why do you claim authority?
::
:
: Because I can read and you apparently cannot.
:
:In other words you are a parrot with no authority. Start backing up your
:claims or drop your 'tude to a sociable level.
:

In other words, I can read and go with the facts and you cannot. Feel
free to go sod yourself.

:
:
::
::
:::
:::Harpoon weight of 1145 lbs Max Speed = 530mph
:::
::
:: That's the weight for the air-launch Harpoon. If you launch it from a
:: ship it weighs almost 1500 pounds.
:
:Yup and that weight drops back to the 1145 as soon as the booster drops
ff. Now why didn't you note that Freddy? Hmmmm. You failed to note that
:because it detracts from your arguement, doesn't Freddy.
:

I don't have an "argument", you stupid git. I'm just correcting his
facts.

And the weight of both of them changes as they burn fuel. So what?

:
:
::
::
:::
:::SM2 weight of 2980 lbs(don't know if this includes booster) Max Speed =
:::1900mph
:::
::
:: That's the weight for the ER version. It's over 26 feet long and I
:: don't believe we currently have any ships that fire it. The MR
:: version of SM-2 weighs around 1400 pounds.
::
::Just what system is the Navy using for ABM? They are in service even if
:it
::is a small number of ships...
::
:
: SM-3. It's a very different configuration with different guidance and
: a different warhead.
:
:
:SM-3 is a derivative of SM-2 ER Block IV. For the purposes of this argument
:it is SM-3 because the you're arguing weight.
:

Do you know for a fact that a VLS cell that will handle SM-3
(essentially a 4 stage missile of much greater weight and height) will
handle an SM-2ER? I don't.

Do you know for a fact that SM-3 with a LEAP warhead even *has* a
secondary anti-ship mode? I don't. Again, the guidance is *VERY*
different.

:
:
::
::
:: Oh, and that 1900 MPH is at altitude. It's going to be slower down in
:: denser air.
::
::
::??? What trajectory does the SM use? Is it a sea skimmer in the surface
::attack mode?
::
:
: You think enemy ships are at 30,000 feet? I'd find that pretty
: surprising, personally.
:
:
:Look up the word trajectory. Try to understand that there are several paths
:between two points. Now try to think about my question and then smack
:yourself in the forehead when you realize how absolutely stupid your
:comment is. Now hit yourself in the forehead again so you remember not to
:leap to an idiotic conclusion next time.
:

Look up the guidance for SM-2, you stupid clod.

:
:Since you still haven't figured it out, I neve said the SM would stay at
:any particular altitude. Now try to remember the concepts of potential
:energy and kinetic energy. Try real hard. Get some help if you can't figure
ut why an arcing trajectory is desirable for some points of view.
:

It certainly makes you easier to shoot down. It also screws up
guidance for this particular missile.

:
:
::
::
:::
:::Now the Harpoon carries a much larger warhead but the SM2 is heavier and
:::impacts at a much higher speed. Is it reasonable to make a SWAG that a
:::Standard SM2 will inflict as much or more damage?
:::
:::After all, speed kills....
:::
::
:: By the time they reach the target, Harpoon is probably heavier
:: (because of the heavier warhead). A lot of that weight in the
:: Standard round is fuel.
::
:: Speed isn't what kills. That's why we put warheads on the things.
::
::
::Speed kills. Blast kills. How much energy is delivered to the target? That
::question is all that matters.
::
:
: And much more is generally delivered by something going 'boom' than by
: something that doesn't.
:
: Go run the numbers for yourself...
:
:
on't tell me what to do punk. You really should allow room for the world
:to change Freddy. It is going to change whether you like it or not.
:

Fine, don't run them. You've just shown you're merely a loudmouth
idiot incapable of supporting your own position.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Clark wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: Clark wrote:
:
::Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
::
:: Clark wrote:
::
:::Fred J. McCall wrote in
om:
:::
::: "Dean A. Markley" wrote:
:::[snip]
::::
::::A quick search reveals the following:
::::
:::
::: Should have searched a bit slower. Let me correct:
:::
:::
:::Why do you claim authority?
:::
::
:: Because I can read and you apparently cannot.
::
::In other words you are a parrot with no authority. Start backing up your
::claims or drop your 'tude to a sociable level.
::
:
: In other words, I can read and go with the facts and you cannot. Feel
: free to go sod yourself.
:
:And you too, my fine parrot friend.
:

Sorry you can't stand having actual facts injected.

:
::
::
:::
:::
::::
::::Harpoon weight of 1145 lbs Max Speed = 530mph
::::
:::
::: That's the weight for the air-launch Harpoon. If you launch it from
::: a ship it weighs almost 1500 pounds.
::
::Yup and that weight drops back to the 1145 as soon as the booster drops
:ff. Now why didn't you note that Freddy? Hmmmm. You failed to note that
::because it detracts from your arguement, doesn't Freddy.
::
:
: I don't have an "argument", you stupid git.
:
:Thanks for admitting you don't have a leg to stand on.
:

Thanks for demonstrating you can't read simple English sentences.

:
:
: And the weight of both of them changes as they burn fuel. So what?
:
:Get real. You tried to make out the Harpoon to be better by neglecting an
:important point. I exposed the weakness in your position. Sorry 'bout that.
:Really.
:

I did no such thing. What I did was CORRECT NUMBERS SOMEONE GAVE THAT
WERE INCORRECT. That's it. That's why I don't have an 'argument';
because I'm not taking any position except to state that the numbers
given were wrong.

Sorry you're so allergic to facts.

:
:
::
::
:::
:::
::::
::::SM2 weight of 2980 lbs(don't know if this includes booster) Max
::::Speed = 1900mph
::::
:::
::: That's the weight for the ER version. It's over 26 feet long and I
::: don't believe we currently have any ships that fire it. The MR
::: version of SM-2 weighs around 1400 pounds.
:::
:::Just what system is the Navy using for ABM? They are in service even
:::if
::it
:::is a small number of ships...
:::
::
:: SM-3. It's a very different configuration with different guidance and
:: a different warhead.
::
::
::SM-3 is a derivative of SM-2 ER Block IV. For the purposes of this
::argument it is SM-3 because the you're arguing weight.
::
:
: Do you know for a fact that a VLS cell that will handle SM-3
: (essentially a 4 stage missile of much greater weight and height) will
: handle an SM-2ER? I don't.
:
:I do. The SM-3 operates from an Aegis VLS system. No doubt and no question.
:Read up a little bit old boy (since that's what you claim to do)
:

There's no such thing as "an Aegis VLS system", old boy. Aegis is the
*RADAR*. VLS is a generic term for 'Vertical Launch System' and is
the hole in the deck that holds the missile. The 'standard' VLS
system used on modern US ships is the Mk 41 VLS system. The SM-3 will
*NOT* fit in a standard Mk 41 VLS cell. They're nowhere near deep
enough. It takes a specialized cell to hold them.

Let me help you out, since you're apparently incapable of learning
anything on your own.

"The RIM-67 SM-2ER was the Navy's replacement for RIM-2 Terrier
missile. Ships carrying the SM-2 ER were often still called Terrier
ships even after the SM-2ER. Because the RIM-67's first stage booster
was very long, it could not fit into the Mk 41 VLS system, and thus
could not be used with the Aegis weapon system."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_missile

:
:
: Do you know for a fact that SM-3 with a LEAP warhead even *has* a
: secondary anti-ship mode? I don't. Again, the guidance is *VERY*
: different.
:
:
:And do you know that it doesn't? Of course you don't but what ever you do
:don't let that slow you down one little bit my fine parrot friend.
:

Well, hell, maybe they have a thousand Marines with slingshots. I
don't KNOW that they don't, but it's pretty unlikely in the judgment
of anyone with a couple of neurons still working above the neck.

I suggest you look up LEAP and how it works. I also suggest you look
up SM-3 and how it works.

:
:
::
::
:::
:::
::: Oh, and that 1900 MPH is at altitude. It's going to be slower down
::: in denser air.
:::
:::
:::??? What trajectory does the SM use? Is it a sea skimmer in the
:::surface attack mode?
:::
::
:: You think enemy ships are at 30,000 feet? I'd find that pretty
:: surprising, personally.
::
::
::Look up the word trajectory. Try to understand that there are several
:aths between two points. Now try to think about my question and then
::smack yourself in the forehead when you realize how absolutely stupid
::your comment is. Now hit yourself in the forehead again so you remember
::not to leap to an idiotic conclusion next time.
::
:
: Look up the guidance for SM-2, you stupid clod.
:
:I'm sorry parrot boy but you made the absurd claim that a ship would have
:to be at 30,000 feet.
:

Nonsense! I see you can't read. I can't say I'm surprised.

:
:You are the one sorely in need of education on the
:matter. So sorry 'bout that parrot boy.
:

Poor dumbass. Perhaps some day you'll develop an actual clue.

:
:
::
::Since you still haven't figured it out, I neve said the SM would stay at
::any particular altitude. Now try to remember the concepts of potential
::energy and kinetic energy. Try real hard. Get some help if you can't
::figure out why an arcing trajectory is desirable for some points of
::view.
::
:
: It certainly makes you easier to shoot down. It also screws up
: guidance for this particular missile.
:
:No to both. It may or may not make it easier to detect. Interception is a
:whole 'nother story.
:

Oh? You speak with authority in this area, do you?

So tell us, how does a missile with the type of guidance that Standard
has engage a surface target that is over the horizon?

So tell us, just what miracle of geometry comes to pass that a missile
with a high trajectory isn't in view at much longer ranges?

So tell us, how hard is it to shoot down something that is CBDR and
visible a long way off?

Dumbass.

:
:
::
::
:::
:::
::::
::::Now the Harpoon carries a much larger warhead but the SM2 is heavier
::::and impacts at a much higher speed. Is it reasonable to make a SWAG
::::that a Standard SM2 will inflict as much or more damage?
::::
::::After all, speed kills....
::::
:::
::: By the time they reach the target, Harpoon is probably heavier
::: (because of the heavier warhead). A lot of that weight in the
::: Standard round is fuel.
:::
::: Speed isn't what kills. That's why we put warheads on the things.
:::
:::
:::Speed kills. Blast kills. How much energy is delivered to the target?
:::That question is all that matters.
:::
::
:: And much more is generally delivered by something going 'boom' than by
:: something that doesn't.
::
:: Go run the numbers for yourself...
::
::
:on't tell me what to do punk. You really should allow room for the
::world to change Freddy. It is going to change whether you like it or
::not.
::
:
: Fine, don't run them. You've just shown you're merely a loudmouth
: idiot incapable of supporting your own position.
:
:
:Har, har. Is that the best you can do?
:

Yep. Nothing better than pointing out that you can't be bothered to
support your own outrageous claims.

:
:Well I suppose it is after you've
:been beaten to a pulp by pointing out the flaws in your own argument.
:

You're apparently too thick to even understand that I don't have an
'argument'. I merely corrected some incorrect numbers.

:
:Sorry
:'bout that parrot boy. Better luck next time.
:

Sorry you're such a dumbass. Get back to me if you ever develop a
clue.

:
:You know what they say don't you parrot boy? I'll give you a hint: If you
:can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
:

Guess we're having fried dumbass for dinner tonight. All heat and no
light.

:
:Bye now and try not to suck so bad next time. 'kay?
:

Poor, ignorant Clark. He can't support his own rants, so he blats the
preceding and declares victory.

So, just what fast food joint do you earn your living in, anyway?


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Clark wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: Clark wrote:
:
::Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
::
:: Clark wrote:
::
:::Fred J. McCall wrote in
om:
:::
::: Clark wrote:
:::
::::Fred J. McCall wrote in
::::news:nsgcq3l71c08a3vnp7cet0o1lfggq2fmbp@4ax .com:
::::
:::: "Dean A. Markley" wrote:
::::[snip]
:::::
:::::A quick search reveals the following:
:::::
::::
:::: Should have searched a bit slower. Let me correct:
::::
::::
::::Why do you claim authority?
::::
:::
::: Because I can read and you apparently cannot.
:::
:::In other words you are a parrot with no authority. Start backing up
:::your claims or drop your 'tude to a sociable level.
:::
::
:: In other words, I can read and go with the facts and you cannot. Feel
:: free to go sod yourself.
::
::And you too, my fine parrot friend.
::
:
: Sorry you can't stand having actual facts injected.
:
:Your actual "facts" are obviously not since all you can do is parrot
:inaccurate sources. Do keep trying parrot boy.
:

Except they're ACCURATE figures, dumbass, correcting inaccurate
figures.

:
:
::
:::
:::
::::
::::
:::::
:::::Harpoon weight of 1145 lbs Max Speed = 530mph
:::::
::::
:::: That's the weight for the air-launch Harpoon. If you launch it
:::: from a ship it weighs almost 1500 pounds.
:::
:::Yup and that weight drops back to the 1145 as soon as the booster
:::drops off. Now why didn't you note that Freddy? Hmmmm. You failed to
:::note that because it detracts from your arguement, doesn't Freddy.
:::
::
:: I don't have an "argument", you stupid git.
::
::Thanks for admitting you don't have a leg to stand on.
::
:
: Thanks for demonstrating you can't read simple English sentences.
:
:I read it just fine, parrot boy. Sorry you can't accept your stupidity.
:

Of course you can, dear boy. Now why don't you run along and play
with yourself like a good troglodyte?

:
:
::
::
:: And the weight of both of them changes as they burn fuel. So what?
::
::Get real. You tried to make out the Harpoon to be better by neglecting
::an important point. I exposed the weakness in your position. Sorry 'bout
::that. Really.
::
:
: I did no such thing. What I did was CORRECT NUMBERS SOMEONE GAVE THAT
: WERE INCORRECT. That's it. That's why I don't have an 'argument';
: because I'm not taking any position except to state that the numbers
: given were wrong.
:
:Sorry parrot boy. That approach won't work. Your numbers are mis-leading and
:they don't correct a thing. In other words you're twisting in the wind like a
olitician and don't have a leg to stand on.
:

I see reality doesn't matter in your universe.
:
:
: Sorry you're so allergic to facts.
:
:
:That's what all the politicians say when their lies are exposed. Good luck
:arguing with yourself parrot boy.
:

You poor, sad little ******. This is really the only way you can
convince yourself you 'matter', isn't it?

:
:
::
::
:::
:::
::::
::::
:::::
:::::SM2 weight of 2980 lbs(don't know if this includes booster) Max
:::::Speed = 1900mph
:::::
::::
:::: That's the weight for the ER version. It's over 26 feet long and
:::: I don't believe we currently have any ships that fire it. The MR
:::: version of SM-2 weighs around 1400 pounds.
::::
::::Just what system is the Navy using for ABM? They are in service even
::::if
:::it
::::is a small number of ships...
::::
:::
::: SM-3. It's a very different configuration with different guidance
::: and a different warhead.
:::
:::
:::SM-3 is a derivative of SM-2 ER Block IV. For the purposes of this
:::argument it is SM-3 because the you're arguing weight.
:::
::
:: Do you know for a fact that a VLS cell that will handle SM-3
:: (essentially a 4 stage missile of much greater weight and height) will
:: handle an SM-2ER? I don't.
::
::I do. The SM-3 operates from an Aegis VLS system. No doubt and no
::question. Read up a little bit old boy (since that's what you claim to
::do)
::
:
: There's no such thing as "an Aegis VLS system", old boy. Aegis is the
: *RADAR*. VLS is a generic term for 'Vertical Launch System' and is
: the hole in the deck that holds the missile. The 'standard' VLS
: system used on modern US ships is the Mk 41 VLS system. The SM-3 will
: *NOT* fit in a standard Mk 41 VLS cell. They're nowhere near deep
: enough. It takes a specialized cell to hold them.
:
: Let me help you out, since you're apparently incapable of learning
: anything on your own.
:
: "The RIM-67 SM-2ER was the Navy's replacement for RIM-2 Terrier
: missile. Ships carrying the SM-2 ER were often still called Terrier
: ships even after the SM-2ER. Because the RIM-67's first stage booster
: was very long, it could not fit into the Mk 41 VLS system, and thus
: could not be used with the Aegis weapon system."
:
: -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_missile
:
:
:Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with Aegis. Can't
:do it now can you parrot boy. You can apologize any time you like. Sorry you
:are so wrong.
:

Poor little ******. The one used with Aegis (Mk 41) isn't always used
with Aegis. It's used all over the place. Aegis usually implies a Mk
41 VLS, but the reverse is not true. And that's not to mention
Umkhonto, SYLVER, GWS 26 VLS, Mk 57, all the variously sized and
mechanized Russian systems for Grumble, Gauntlet, Shipwreck, etc, etc.

You are SERIOUSLY in need of a clue. However, I'm pretty sure that
you wouldn't be able to find one even if it was stapled to your
forehead.

:
:
::
::
:: Do you know for a fact that SM-3 with a LEAP warhead even *has* a
:: secondary anti-ship mode? I don't. Again, the guidance is *VERY*
:: different.
::
::
::And do you know that it doesn't? Of course you don't but what ever you
::do don't let that slow you down one little bit my fine parrot friend.
::
:
: Well, hell, maybe they have a thousand Marines with slingshots. I
: don't KNOW that they don't, but it's pretty unlikely in the judgment
: of anyone with a couple of neurons still working above the neck.
:
: I suggest you look up LEAP and how it works. I also suggest you look
: up SM-3 and how it works.
:
:
:I suggest you pull your head out of your rectal orfice. Of course you won't
:do that 'cause you like the smell.
:

You know, you aren't even very good at this. Here, let me help you
out.

It sounds like English; it even looks like English, but I can't
understand a word you're blabbering. How about putting that into
proper syntax, form, and grammar so that I can at least understand
what you are saying before I dismiss it?

I suppose I should have some sympathy for your handicap. You are
obviously paralyzed from the neck up. You must have a very large brain
to hold such a vast amount of sheer ignorance. Oh well, at least you
only charge what your free advice is worth. Oh well, as the late
Douglas Adams said: "You live and learn. At any rate, you live."

When god was handing out personalities, you must have been holding the
door. You're so boring, even a boomerang wouldn't come back to you.
You are like watching Amputee Field Hockey: pathetic, and very quickly
disgusting. Maybe you wouldn't read like such a pathetic loser if
didn't lack even the dim flicker of sentience needed to qualify as a
imbecile; if your weren't so fat that when God said "Let there be
Light", he told you to move your fat ass out of the way, or if you
didn't have a face that could be used as an alternative to a stomach
pump. Nah, of course you would.

In future, wake up the dozy peglegged hamster operating that
wheel-powered brain of yours before you start typing.

:
:
::
::
:::
:::
::::
::::
:::: Oh, and that 1900 MPH is at altitude. It's going to be slower
:::: down in denser air.
::::
::::
::::??? What trajectory does the SM use? Is it a sea skimmer in the
::::surface attack mode?
::::
:::
::: You think enemy ships are at 30,000 feet? I'd find that pretty
::: surprising, personally.
:::
:::
:::Look up the word trajectory. Try to understand that there are several
::aths between two points. Now try to think about my question and then
:::smack yourself in the forehead when you realize how absolutely stupid
:::your comment is. Now hit yourself in the forehead again so you
:::remember not to leap to an idiotic conclusion next time.
:::
::
:: Look up the guidance for SM-2, you stupid clod.
::
::I'm sorry parrot boy but you made the absurd claim that a ship would
::have to be at 30,000 feet.
::
:
: Nonsense! I see you can't read. I can't say I'm surprised.
:
:
:There is no nonsense. You clearly state that ships have to be at 30,000 feet
:to be attacked by a SM. That is clearly false. You really need to buy a few
:clues parrot boy.
:

And just where did I make this non-existent statement, ******?

You REALLY don't read, do you?

:
:
::
::You are the one sorely in need of education on the
::matter. So sorry 'bout that parrot boy.
::
:
: Poor dumbass. Perhaps some day you'll develop an actual clue.
:
::
::
:::
:::Since you still haven't figured it out, I neve said the SM would stay
:::at any particular altitude. Now try to remember the concepts of
::otential energy and kinetic energy. Try real hard. Get some help if
:::you can't figure out why an arcing trajectory is desirable for some
::oints of view.
:::
::
:: It certainly makes you easier to shoot down. It also screws up
:: guidance for this particular missile.
::
::No to both. It may or may not make it easier to detect. Interception is
::a whole 'nother story.
::
:
: Oh? You speak with authority in this area, do you?
:
: So tell us, how does a missile with the type of guidance that Standard
: has engage a surface target that is over the horizon?
:
:Ever hear of Standard Land Attack. Guess not. Oh well.
:

Yeah. Do you know anything at all about it? Guess not. Oh well.

Oh, and that's Land Attack Standard Missile (LASM), not "Standard Land
Attack", you poor ignorant git.

:
:
: So tell us, just what miracle of geometry comes to pass that a missile
: with a high trajectory isn't in view at much longer ranges?
:
: So tell us, how hard is it to shoot down something that is CBDR and
: visible a long way off?
:
: Dumbass.
:
:Well I just call you parrot boy but if you want to sign your statements as
:dumbass that's fine by me. Have fun parrot boy.
:

You must be a vegetarian. One could wish you were smarter than your
food.

Some people are has-beens. You are a never-was.

:
:
::
::
:::
:::
::::
::::
:::::
:::::Now the Harpoon carries a much larger warhead but the SM2 is
:::::heavier and impacts at a much higher speed. Is it reasonable to
:::::make a SWAG that a Standard SM2 will inflict as much or more
:::::damage?
:::::
:::::After all, speed kills....
:::::
::::
:::: By the time they reach the target, Harpoon is probably heavier
:::: (because of the heavier warhead). A lot of that weight in the
:::: Standard round is fuel.
::::
:::: Speed isn't what kills. That's why we put warheads on the things.
::::
::::
::::Speed kills. Blast kills. How much energy is delivered to the
::::target? That question is all that matters.
::::
:::
::: And much more is generally delivered by something going 'boom' than
::: by something that doesn't.
:::
::: Go run the numbers for yourself...
:::
:::
::on't tell me what to do punk. You really should allow room for the
:::world to change Freddy. It is going to change whether you like it or
:::not.
:::
::
:: Fine, don't run them. You've just shown you're merely a loudmouth
:: idiot incapable of supporting your own position.
::
::
::Har, har. Is that the best you can do?
::
:
: Yep. Nothing better than pointing out that you can't be bothered to
: support your own outrageous claims.
:
:Ahem. You're the one making false claims parrot boy. Keep at it and you will
:earn a special usenet place along with the other k00ks.
:

And just what 'false claims' would those be? So far, your litany
seems to run to objecting to actual facts, a rather poor variety of
personal insult, and bird references.

You're really not even a very good troll. But I've got time to waste,
so I'll slap you around a bit.

It's really a shame when you adolescents can't find any other way to
convince yourself you matter than this sort of thing.

:
:
::
::Well I suppose it is after you've
::been beaten to a pulp by pointing out the flaws in your own argument.
::
:
: You're apparently too thick to even understand that I don't have an
: 'argument'. I merely corrected some incorrect numbers.
:
:Nope. You tried to slant things your way (which by the way is called an
:argument since you obviously don't know that) by making irrelevant
:statements. I pointed out that the statements weren't pertinent and all you
:can do is falsely deny. So sorry 'bout that.
:

I don't have a 'way' to slant things toward, you silly git.

:
:
::
::Sorry
::'bout that parrot boy. Better luck next time.
::
:
: Sorry you're such a dumbass. Get back to me if you ever develop a
: clue.
:
::
::You know what they say don't you parrot boy? I'll give you a hint: If
::you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
::
:
: Guess we're having fried dumbass for dinner tonight. All heat and no
: light.
:
:
:Really? eating your own gizzard for dinner is really sad. Oh well.
:

Well, you would know.

Believe me, I don't want to make a monkey out of you. Why should I
take all the credit for what nature has done to you?

:
:
::
::Bye now and try not to suck so bad next time. 'kay?
::
:
: Poor, ignorant Clark. He can't support his own rants, so he blats the
: preceding and declares victory.
:
: So, just what fast food joint do you earn your living in, anyway?
:
:
:So sorry you're still sucking so bad that the weather service notes a vacuum
:in your area. Sorry about that parrot boy. The only way out for you now is to
:just give up. Maybe you can change your usenet name and no one will notice.
:Probably not but give it a shot since you've got nothing else left.
:

Congratulations! You have just proved the theory that there is no
limit to human stupidity. I suggest you hone your writing skills
before applying borrowed glories as a mere typist.

It seems your fingers not only did your typing, but did your thinking
too. Have you considered suing your brain for non-support? You're just
another Internet-addicted idiot suffering from diarrhea of the mouth
and constipation of the mind. Have you ever noticed that whenever you
sit behind a keyboard, some idiot starts typing? You bring to mind a
quote from Josh Billing: "Doesn't know much, but leads the league in
nostril hair."

When god was handing out personalities, you must have been holding the
door. You're so boring, even a boomerang wouldn't come back to you.
There's nothing wrong with you that couldn't be cured with a little
Prozac and a polo mallet, or, better yet, suicide. Maybe you wouldn't
come across as such a jellyfish-sucking mental midget if your brain
cells weren't on the Endangered Species list; if your weren't so fat
that all the restaurants in town have signs that say: "Maximum
Occupancy: 80 Patrons OR You.", or if you didn't have a face that is
registered as a biological weapon. No, come to think of it, you would.

:
:In the future Freddy boy you'll find things much easier if you aren't so
:combative and a little more open to other perspectives (which happen to be
:correct in this case). Of course you'll never accept this advice since your
:head is firmly embedded up your own ass. Obviously you like the smell so
:you'll keep it there.
:
:Good Luck!
:

I don't need luck. I have reality.

Good luck finding a date to that 8th grade prom...


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Clark wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: Clark wrote:
:[snip Freddies cries for help]
::
::I suggest you pull your head out of your rectal orfice. Of course you
::won't do that 'cause you like the smell.
::
:
: You know, you aren't even very good at this. Here, let me help you
: out.
:
: It sounds like English; it even looks like English, but I can't
: understand a word you're blabbering. How about putting that into
: proper syntax, form, and grammar so that I can at least understand
: what you are saying before I dismiss it?
:
:There it is in a nutshell folks. Freddy is sooo stupid he can't even
:understand being told why he likes keeping his head up his ass. Poor sot!
:
:Nothing more needs said.
:

Yes, Clarkie, when you're wrong and stupid you should indeed just try
to declare victory and run away.

You still don't know what you're talking about on pretty much any
topic one would care to name.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

In message , Clark
writes
Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with Aegis.

GWS26 Sea Wolf. PAAMS (Sylver launchers plus ASTER missiles). SA-N-6 and
SA-N-9, for the Russians. At least one Chinese system whose designation
I can't recall offhand. Barak, for Israeli kit. Vertically Launched Sea
Sparrow.

There may be more but that's a starting point. Plenty of users like
vertical launch without ever getting near AEGIS.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

Clark wrote:

:On 09 Feb 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.military.naval:
:
: In message , Clark
: writes
:Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with Aegis.
:
: GWS26 Sea Wolf. PAAMS (Sylver launchers plus ASTER missiles). SA-N-6 and
: SA-N-9, for the Russians. At least one Chinese system whose designation
: I can't recall offhand. Barak, for Israeli kit. Vertically Launched Sea
: Sparrow.
:
: There may be more but that's a starting point. Plenty of users like
: vertical launch without ever getting near AEGIS.
:
:
:In other words, for the point of this exchange there aren't any. We were
:typing about Standard missiles.
:

No, we weren't. You insisted that "AEGIS" was identically "VLS".

You're wrong. It's not.

That's not even true for Standard-capable launchers (Mk 41 VLS), since
the new LPDs will have Mk 41 launchers and no AEGIS system. Some of
the Spruance class (all those currently left in commission) have Mk 41
VLS and no AEGIS system.

Now, would you like to wriggle some more, or shall you just admit you
didn't know what you were talking about and move on?


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Clark wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: Clark wrote:
:
::On 09 Feb 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.military.naval:
::
:: In message , Clark
:: writes
::Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with Aegis.
::
:: GWS26 Sea Wolf. PAAMS (Sylver launchers plus ASTER missiles). SA-N-6
:and
:: SA-N-9, for the Russians. At least one Chinese system whose designation
:: I can't recall offhand. Barak, for Israeli kit. Vertically Launched Sea
:: Sparrow.
::
:: There may be more but that's a starting point. Plenty of users like
:: vertical launch without ever getting near AEGIS.
::
::
::In other words, for the point of this exchange there aren't any. We were
::typing about Standard missiles.
::
:
: No, we weren't. You insisted that "AEGIS" was identically "VLS".
:
:Read it again dimwit. I noted that Aegis and vls went together and they do.
:

Read it again, dumbass. You insisted that "AEGIS" and "VLS" meant the
same thing. They don't. They also don't always go together. There
have been AEGIS ships without VLS and VLS ships without AEGIS.

:
:
: You're wrong. It's not.
:
:Show me an Aegis that doesn't have VLS.
:
: That's not even true for Standard-capable launchers (Mk 41 VLS), since
: the new LPDs will have Mk 41 launchers and no AEGIS system. Some of
: the Spruance class (all those currently left in commission) have Mk 41
: VLS and no AEGIS system.
:
:There are no Sprucans left in commission. Last one was decommissioned in
:05.
:

So what? You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS. You then
revised to there being no VLS firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice
versa).

You're still wrong. There have been AEGIS ships without VLS and there
have been VLS ships, firing both Standard and other missiles, without
AEGIS.

:
: Now, would you like to wriggle some more, or shall you just admit you
: didn't know what you were talking about and move on?
:
:Get real. You are the arrogant clueless one here. You really need a reality
:check...and some parental guidance.
:

Both my parents are dead, you stupid ****e. My mother just died a few
weeks ago.

And you're not only ignorant and stupid, you're apparently also
ill-mannered and insensitive.

Sort of a Renaissance ****head.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Clark wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: Clark wrote:
:
::Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
::
:: Clark wrote:
::
:::On 09 Feb 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.military.naval:
:::
::: In message , Clark
::: writes
:::Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with
:::Aegis.
:::
::: GWS26 Sea Wolf. PAAMS (Sylver launchers plus ASTER missiles). SA-N-6 and
::: SA-N-9, for the Russians. At least one Chinese system whose
::: designation I can't recall offhand. Barak, for Israeli kit.
::: Vertically Launched Sea Sparrow.
:::
::: There may be more but that's a starting point. Plenty of users like
::: vertical launch without ever getting near AEGIS.
:::
:::
:::In other words, for the point of this exchange there aren't any. We
:::were typing about Standard missiles.
:::
::
:: No, we weren't. You insisted that "AEGIS" was identically "VLS".
::
::Read it again dimwit. I noted that Aegis and vls went together and they
::do.
::
:
: Read it again, dumbass. You insisted that "AEGIS" and "VLS" meant the
: same thing. They don't. They also don't always go together. There
: have been AEGIS ships without VLS and VLS ships without AEGIS.
:
::
::
:: You're wrong. It's not.
::
::Show me an Aegis that doesn't have VLS.
::
:: That's not even true for Standard-capable launchers (Mk 41 VLS), since
:: the new LPDs will have Mk 41 launchers and no AEGIS system. Some of
:: the Spruance class (all those currently left in commission) have Mk 41
:: VLS and no AEGIS system.
::
::There are no Sprucans left in commission. Last one was decommissioned in
::05.
::
:
: So what? You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS. You then
: revised to there being no VLS firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice
: versa).
:
:And you tried to use Sprucans as an example of VLS w/o Aegis. So sorry that
:they don't exist.
:

Except they do exist. You're just now trying to further revise your
original remark to achieve some form of correctness. So far:

1) You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS and vice versa, saying
that saying AEGIS when you meant VLS was the same statement.

2) You then revised to there being no VLS capable of firing Standard
without AEGIS (and vice versa).

3) You then revised to there being no *US* VLS capable of firing
Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).

4) You're now at there being no *US* VLS on ships currently in
commission capable of firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).

And you're still wrong.

:
:
: You're still wrong. There have been AEGIS ships without VLS and there
: have been VLS ships, firing both Standard and other missiles, without
: AEGIS.
:
:That wasn't what I stated. Go back and read it again. Get someone to help
:you understand.
:

That was precisely what you stated and your ill-mannered behaviour at
this point doesn't erase it. Let us once again enumerate the
evolution of your claim:

1) You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS and vice versa, saying
that saying AEGIS when you meant VLS was the same statement.

2) You then revised to there being no VLS capable of firing Standard
without AEGIS (and vice versa).

3) You then revised to there being no *US* VLS capable of firing
Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).

4) You're now at there being no *US* VLS on ships currently in
commission capable of firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).

And you're still wrong.

:
:
::
:: Now, would you like to wriggle some more, or shall you just admit you
:: didn't know what you were talking about and move on?
::
::Get real. You are the arrogant clueless one here. You really need a
::reality check...and some parental guidance.
::
:
: Both my parents are dead, you stupid ****e. My mother just died a few
: weeks ago.
:
: And you're not only ignorant and stupid, you're apparently also
: ill-mannered and insensitive.
:
:And I'm insensitive because of....what? Now, if you had previously
ublished that your mother had passed on and it was known to all then
erhaps I would be insensitive.
:

Uh, I don't know how to break it to you, dumbass, but that's precisely
what happened. Ask around.

As we've seen from your other expositions in ignorance, YOU not
knowing is not the same as "not known to all".

:
:Your bull**** on the other hand is highly
:suspect because you've already made other *documented* false statements
see Sprucans).
:

And just what did I say that was false? Have you now moved to "the
Spruance class never existed" in your litany of idiocy?

:
:In other words, your mother didn't just pass and you are
:trying for the sympathy play. Good luck with that.
:

Why would anyone want 'sympathy' from a gormless twit like you? And
do you seriously think anyone would bother to tell such a lie just to
'win' a point? Unlikely. After all, most people aren't like you.

:
:
: Sort of a Renaissance ****head.
:
:Well, the ****head part describes you perfectly. Try real hard to deal with
:the world as it exists rather than the one you want to spin. Good luck!
:

Yeah. Now that's you've achieved maximal stupidity, you should
probably run away.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

snip of nonsense

::Show me an Aegis that doesn't have VLS.

again snip of nonsense

Easy reply: what I call the "early Tico":

CG-47 USS Ticonderoga
CG-48 USS Yorktown
CG-49 USS Vincennes (aka "robocruiser")
CG-50 USS Valley Forge
CG-51 USS Thomas S. Gates

all five have two Mk26 twin launcher, and was stricken from Aug.30 2004
(USS Valley Forge) to dec.15 2005 (USS Thomas S. Gates)

So instead of wasting time on wording, please stuck to the topic

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

Lack of content noted.

Poor Clarkie has been way too stupid for way to long.

Take a 30 day 'time out' sonny.

plonk


Clark wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: Clark wrote:
:
::Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
::
:: Clark wrote:
::
:::Fred J. McCall wrote in
om:
:::
::: Clark wrote:
:::
::::On 09 Feb 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.military.naval:
::::
:::: In message , Clark
:::: writes
::::Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with
::::Aegis.
::::
:::: GWS26 Sea Wolf. PAAMS (Sylver launchers plus ASTER missiles).
:::: SA-N-6 and SA-N-9, for the Russians. At least one Chinese system
:::: whose designation I can't recall offhand. Barak, for Israeli kit.
:::: Vertically Launched Sea Sparrow.
::::
:::: There may be more but that's a starting point. Plenty of users
:::: like vertical launch without ever getting near AEGIS.
::::
::::
::::In other words, for the point of this exchange there aren't any. We
::::were typing about Standard missiles.
::::
:::
::: No, we weren't. You insisted that "AEGIS" was identically "VLS".
:::
:::Read it again dimwit. I noted that Aegis and vls went together and
:::they do.
:::
::
:: Read it again, dumbass. You insisted that "AEGIS" and "VLS" meant the
:: same thing. They don't. They also don't always go together. There
:: have been AEGIS ships without VLS and VLS ships without AEGIS.
::
:::
:::
::: You're wrong. It's not.
:::
:::Show me an Aegis that doesn't have VLS.
:::
::: That's not even true for Standard-capable launchers (Mk 41 VLS),
::: since the new LPDs will have Mk 41 launchers and no AEGIS system.
::: Some of the Spruance class (all those currently left in commission)
::: have Mk 41 VLS and no AEGIS system.
:::
:::There are no Sprucans left in commission. Last one was decommissioned
:::in 05.
:::
::
:: So what? You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS. You then
:: revised to there being no VLS firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice
:: versa).
::
::And you tried to use Sprucans as an example of VLS w/o Aegis. So sorry
::that they don't exist.
::
:
: Except they do exist. You're just now trying to further revise your
: original remark to achieve some form of correctness. So far:
:
: 1) You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS and vice versa, saying
: that saying AEGIS when you meant VLS was the same statement.
:
: 2) You then revised to there being no VLS capable of firing Standard
: without AEGIS (and vice versa).
:
: 3) You then revised to there being no *US* VLS capable of firing
: Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).
:
: 4) You're now at there being no *US* VLS on ships currently in
: commission capable of firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).
:
: And you're still wrong.
:
:Nope. You've got it wrong boy. You try to twist the words but they just
:don't work. Sorry 'bout that.
:
::
::
:: You're still wrong. There have been AEGIS ships without VLS and there
:: have been VLS ships, firing both Standard and other missiles, without
:: AEGIS.
::
::That wasn't what I stated. Go back and read it again. Get someone to
::help you understand.
::
:
: That was precisely what you stated and your ill-mannered behaviour at
: this point doesn't erase it. Let us once again enumerate the
: evolution of your claim:
:
: 1) You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS and vice versa, saying
: that saying AEGIS when you meant VLS was the same statement.
:
:Nope. Sure didn't. Go back and read it again. Get some help to understand
:the big words. Try hard.
:
: 2) You then revised to there being no VLS capable of firing Standard
: without AEGIS (and vice versa).
:
: 3) You then revised to there being no *US* VLS capable of firing
: Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).
:
: 4) You're now at there being no *US* VLS on ships currently in
: commission capable of firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).
:
: And you're still wrong.
:
:Nope. You've got it wrong boy. You try to twist the words but they just
:don't work. Sorry 'bout that.
:
::
::
:::
::: Now, would you like to wriggle some more, or shall you just admit
::: you didn't know what you were talking about and move on?
:::
:::Get real. You are the arrogant clueless one here. You really need a
:::reality check...and some parental guidance.
:::
::
:: Both my parents are dead, you stupid ****e. My mother just died a few
:: weeks ago.
::
:: And you're not only ignorant and stupid, you're apparently also
:: ill-mannered and insensitive.
::
::And I'm insensitive because of....what? Now, if you had previously
:ublished that your mother had passed on and it was known to all then
:erhaps I would be insensitive.
::
:
: Uh, I don't know how to break it to you, dumbass, but that's precisely
: what happened. Ask around.
:
:Nope. Didn't happen. You're making more false claims just like your
:reference to Spruances. Sorry boy but you're busted on this one. Move on.
:
: As we've seen from your other expositions in ignorance, YOU not
: knowing is not the same as "not known to all".
:
::
::Your bull**** on the other hand is highly
::suspect because you've already made other *documented* false statements
:see Sprucans).
::
:
: And just what did I say that was false? Have you now moved to "the
: Spruance class never existed" in your litany of idiocy?
:
:Have you forgotten that you used the Sprucans as a reference even though
:they are long gone?
:
::
::In other words, your mother didn't just pass and you are
::trying for the sympathy play. Good luck with that.
::
:
: Why would anyone want 'sympathy' from a gormless twit like you? And
: do you seriously think anyone would bother to tell such a lie just to
: 'win' a point? Unlikely. After all, most people aren't like you.
:
::
::
:: Sort of a Renaissance ****head.
::
::Well, the ****head part describes you perfectly. Try real hard to deal
::with the world as it exists rather than the one you want to spin. Good
::luck!
::
:
: Yeah. Now that's you've achieved maximal stupidity, you should
: probably run away.
:
:Any you shouldn't even have posted in the first place parrot boy. It's time
:for you to admit your errors Freddie. Give up now and perhaps you will be
:forgiven. Otherwise, drown in you own bull****. HTH & HAND.
:
s. maybe his grandmother will die next...