Not to sound like an F-22 cheerleader but I thought this was interesting. . .

"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...

And you would be claiming that these "official secret" adversary
aircraft
have "silent sentry"..?

No, just you're running in the front of the car, and so have failed to
understand what that means.

The statement you were responding to asked, "Why not aganist silent
sentry
which is designed to..." and you offered a "Because..." answer. So are
you
buying nto this "silent sentry" bit being outfitted onto Russian
aircraft
like the Mig-29 and Su-27 or not?

Yes, I see you have a considerable problem with understanding this.

Now, think for a while: if the USAF is not even reporting about testing of
F-22s against MiG-29s and Su-27s (at home), so, in which World do you live
to expect from them to report about testing much more exotic stuff?

That is NOT what you said. To the query about why they were not
testing/publiscizing the F/A-22 against "silent sentry", you said, "Because
the existence of "Grey Bears" is still an official secret, so they can't
talk about F-22 vs MiG-29/Su-27 testing." You did not say, "They can't even
talk about Mig/Su testing, so why would you expect them to be able to
discuss testing against even more exotic systems". Silent Sentry is, AFAIK,
a ground based system as yet (and a US system to boot)--why you would even
introduce the Mig-29/Su-27 argument into the mix is beyond understanding.



I don't know what is scarier--the thought that you actually think
the
USN
has joined in this alleged "evil cabal" to save the F/A-22, or the
fact
that
you are agreeing with a two-ton loon like Denyav in the first place.
Would
that be "aviation journalist", or "aviation fantasist"?

Again the same problem as above: that should have meant "F-15" instead
of
"F-22", i.e. it was a typo, but you're so fast in attempting to make
me
look
silly, you don't even notice this.

You have lumped the USN into the "save the F/A-22" cabal you posited
with
your, "The USAF and the USN are just re-inventing air-to-air..." bit.
Pray
tell what the USN's big piece of the F/A-22 fight is?

Sigh... OK. Let's try it one more time, this time with the type corrected
(and, don't worry: you'll get it sooner or later):

The USAF and the USN are just re-inventing air-to-air, after they realized
that the F-22 might otherwise get cancelled, and it could happen they to
sit
there with _F-15s_ and Super Horrors and have nothing to tackle all the
Flankers and PAK-FAs any more.

And I hope you'll not come to the same idea again and think that the USN
expects its Super Horrors to fight for air superiority in any kind of
other
scenario but battling Congo, Liberia, or Somalia...?

Once again--why are you claiming the USN is seriously interested in
preserving the F/A-22, as they are "reinventing air-to-air, after they
(inclusive) realized the F-22 (sic) might be cancelled, and it could happen
they to sit (sic??)..."?

Brooks

Tom Cooper

Brooks,
you can jump around each and every word that I say, yet, the point is this:
in no way are you going to hear about what the USAF is testing _right now_.
Forget about this.

So, all this semantic about the silent sentry is useless: you can't know
what are they doing. The USAF is, just for example, testing hypersonic
vehicles already since the early 1990s. Several different (manned and
unmanned) types were developed and tested in flight. Yet, nothing was ever
officially acknowledged or confirmed. There are more MiG-29s operational
with the USAF than in most smaller air forces that fly the type. Guess what?
Nothing was ever officially acknowledged and confirmed about this either.
Stuff like AIM-9X is far further in the R+D process than reported in the
last two years: actually, when I compare what I read in some papers and what
do I hear via private channels, the F-22 is at least one year ahead in
testing to what is currently reported as planned or being underway too. And
this despite the fact that the avionics - all of which is functioning via
the same system - is frequently suffering total failures, so that some of
the test-pilots had to carry their cell-phones in the cockpit, to call the
base and ask which way to fly back when the system crashes.

But you guys here wonder how it comes the F-22 is not reported to have been
tested against silent sentry and such stuff?

Don't wonder, but wait for the news. That's my opinion. We all don't know
what are they currently doing, nor really in which world are they living: we
only get to hear about few tid-bits when it's - actually - too late. So, you
can - at best - GUESS if they have (or not) tested the silent sentry.

Re other stuff: I still haven't found a place where I should have said the
USN is, "seriously interested in preserving the F-22", but as said, we'll
solve this problem too.

I said the USAF and the USN have realized that currently available
air-to-air assets are not up to the task any more. Worst yet - at least in
the case of the USN - even the newest fighter (which proved to have been the
wrong solution in anything but pilot comfort and flying safety) - is not up
to the task. So there is now an urgent need to field the AIM-9X, and then to
get the AIM-120D, so to compensate for short range, slow speed, and lack of
manoeuverability of the F/A-18E/F. That, however, is only to cover a part of
the problem: the type is going to remain unable of fighting the "outer
battle" the way the F-14 could do, and especially against modern threats,
because even longer-ranged missiles (or, what's more important: weapons with
wider envelope) cannot compensate for deficiencies of the aircraft. At the
time the potential enemies are fielding large numbers of superior aircraft,
armed with almost equal weapons and supported by similar network in the
background, this eliminates quite a few of USN's options: you can't start a
war, for example, fighting somebody only with a single carrier carrying one
squadron of F/A-18E/Fs and three squadrons of F/A-18Cs - except you're
fighting a bunch of terrorists in Asian mountains or the African bush.
Anything else is not going to function with assets at hand.

Something similar can be said for the USAF: there is a large gap in the
quality between such an asset like B-2 and the F-15. One can start a war and
deliver the main blow with B-2s, but the gap is closing - if it's not
already closed - on the F-15. On the other side, despite their immense
capabilities the B-2 have proven not to be able to completely shut down the
enemy air. Consequently, you have a situation where there is a need for a
measure in between: what a better PR for F-22 one needs? Given that the F-22
is an endangered species, and the JSF is - still - not fix (but also never
to offer a similar capability), there is now so much "good PR" for the
Raptor. If the USN is then also releasing signals that it needs a
longer-ranged solution - that better, for both services (and without the USN
being "interested in preserving the F-22": they're interested in saving what
they can of their own assets, first and foremost).

So, in the context of the original message to which I responded: it is not
surprising that billions were spent for wrong systems in other fields.
Something similar was done in such a well-known arena like air-to-air too.
Worst yet: currently there are attempts to save what can be saved, but all
of this is rather a reaction than a proper action.

Just give me a call if I have to explain this for the fourth time too.

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...
Brooks,
you can jump around each and every word that I say, yet, the point is
this:
in no way are you going to hear about what the USAF is testing _right
now_.
Forget about this.

Hem guy, you ought to know that the ONLY way we have of knowing what you
MEAN is by what you WRITE. In this case, you came in with the view that
"silent sentry" was somehow tied to some apocryphal USAF adversary aircraft
unit--it ain't. Then you came out and stated that the USN was somehow
seriously tied into trying to keep the F/A-22 alive. If you want to bang
someone over the head, look in the freakin' mirror and do a better job of
wordsmithing--as a self-aggrandizing "freelance aviation journalist" you
should be able to communicate your thoughts in an intelligible manner.

Brooks

snip further obfuscation

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

If you want to bang
someone over the head, look in the freakin' mirror and do a better job of
wordsmithing--as a self-aggrandizing "freelance aviation journalist" you
should be able to communicate your thoughts in an intelligible manner.

Sigh...seems that with my signature is your only problem here... or what,
Kevin?

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

If you want to bang
someone over the head, look in the freakin' mirror and do a better job
of
wordsmithing--as a self-aggrandizing "freelance aviation journalist" you
should be able to communicate your thoughts in an intelligible manner.

Sigh...seems that with my signature is your only problem here... or what,
Kevin?

How cute! Sigh...? Typical--you make bold-faced statements, whether through
very poor wording or not, and then try and claim you did not make them, and
then trump it all by snipping the part of the response you don't like. Sad.

Brooks


Tom Cooper

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

If you want to bang
someone over the head, look in the freakin' mirror and do a better job
of
wordsmithing--as a self-aggrandizing "freelance aviation journalist"
you
should be able to communicate your thoughts in an intelligible manner.

Sigh...seems that with my signature is your only problem here... or
what,
Kevin?

How cute! Sigh...? Typical--you make bold-faced statements, whether
through
very poor wording or not, and then try and claim you did not make them,
and
then trump it all by snipping the part of the response you don't like.
Sad.

So, it is my signature after all, Kevin? ;-)))

Thanks a lot for confirmation - otherwise you wouldn't come babbling about
"bold-faced" statements, then I don't know where have I posted such.

BTW, I don't remember to be in a need some kind of special permission from
you for what I'm doing - here or anywhere else - and I have also not
misunderstood this NG for some courtroom. So, I'm telling it again: go and
find yourself somebody else to play - or keep on playing with yourself. I'm
not the least interested.

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Tom Cooper" wrote in
message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

If you want to bang
someone over the head, look in the freakin' mirror and do a better
job
of
wordsmithing--as a self-aggrandizing "freelance aviation journalist"
you
should be able to communicate your thoughts in an intelligible
manner.

Sigh...seems that with my signature is your only problem here... or
what,
Kevin?

How cute! Sigh...? Typical--you make bold-faced statements, whether
through
very poor wording or not, and then try and claim you did not make them,
and
then trump it all by snipping the part of the response you don't like.
Sad.

So, it is my signature after all, Kevin? ;-)))

Thanks a lot for confirmation - otherwise you wouldn't come babbling about
"bold-faced" statements, then I don't know where have I posted such.

BTW, I don't remember to be in a need some kind of special permission from
you for what I'm doing - here or anywhere else - and I have also not
misunderstood this NG for some courtroom. So, I'm telling it again: go and
find yourself somebody else to play - or keep on playing with yourself.
I'm
not the least interested.

Having just read the baseless hype you dumped on Pete about the PRC fielding
some six hundred new advanced aircraft over the next year or two, I'd say
you have your own hands full enough right now.

Brooks


Tom Cooper

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 00:37:54 GMT, "Tom Cooper" wrote:


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

If you want to bang
someone over the head, look in the freakin' mirror and do a better job
of
wordsmithing--as a self-aggrandizing "freelance aviation journalist"
you
should be able to communicate your thoughts in an intelligible manner.

Sigh...seems that with my signature is your only problem here... or
what,
Kevin?

How cute! Sigh...? Typical--you make bold-faced statements, whether
through
very poor wording or not, and then try and claim you did not make them,
and
then trump it all by snipping the part of the response you don't like.
Sad.

So, it is my signature after all, Kevin? ;-)))

Thanks a lot for confirmation - otherwise you wouldn't come babbling about
"bold-faced" statements, then I don't know where have I posted such.

BTW, I don't remember to be in a need some kind of special permission from
you for what I'm doing - here or anywhere else - and I have also not
misunderstood this NG for some courtroom. So, I'm telling it again: go and
find yourself somebody else to play - or keep on playing with yourself. I'm
not the least interested.

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

Actually, you are "not the least" qualified.

Al Minyard