Raptor vs Eagle

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.

George Patterson wrote:
gregg wrote:


That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You
cannot count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the
F-15/F-16.


Well, at the present time, you can count on them flying something
inferior to the F-15/F-16. Given the economic situation in Russia, it
doesn't look like Sukhoi or MiG is going to be changing that anytime soon.

So where can I find out how F-15/F-16/F-18 do against MiG-29, Su-31,
Mirage, Eurofighter, Griffon?

I'd love to guide you when visiting my area (Tirol, Austria) - but there is
little to nothing left re historic sites of WWII in our area.

"JJS" jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net wrote:
Damn, Are you sure you're not French?

Martin Hotze wrote:
yes.

But he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once! :-))

"john smith" wrote in message
...
George Patterson wrote:
gregg wrote:


That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You
cannot count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the
F-15/F-16.


Well, at the present time, you can count on them flying something
inferior to the F-15/F-16. Given the economic situation in Russia, it
doesn't look like Sukhoi or MiG is going to be changing that anytime
soon.

So where can I find out how F-15/F-16/F-18 do against MiG-29, Su-31,
Mirage, Eurofighter, Griffon?


Well in the Desert Shield/Storm F-15s kicked the crap out of Iraqi Mig-29s.
Including one kill where a 15C literally maneuvered the -29 into the ground.

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
gregg wrote:

'cause I don't like weapons.

Does your dislike of weapons therefore lead you to decide you don't want
the US to have weapons?

my dislike is not (only) directed towards the US.



Martin,

First, this is an honest question. I'm not trying to start a flame war I
really want to know.

You've said you don't like weapons. Is this a dislike of the object or what
they are used for?

Do you think nations should unilaterally disarm?

john smith wrote:

So where can I find out how F-15/F-16/F-18 do against MiG-29, Su-31,
Mirage, Eurofighter, Griffon?

The USAF has a base out west someplace where they compete against them. Might be
the "Top Gun" school.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

George Patterson wrote:

john smith wrote:


So where can I find out how F-15/F-16/F-18 do against MiG-29, Su-31,
Mirage, Eurofighter, Griffon?


The USAF has a base out west someplace where they compete against them.
Might be the "Top Gun" school.

Top Gun is Navy and the base is in the desert now, no longer at Miramar.

"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.

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

Martin,

First, this is an honest question. I'm not trying to start a flame war I
really want to know.

ok

You've said you don't like weapons. Is this a dislike of the object or
what
they are used for?

I don't like weapons as weapons, means: if somebody is around me carrying
a
gun I try to leave. I even try to stand not too close to armed cops
because
of the same cause.



Thanks,

I can understand dislike of what weapons can do. I just don't understand
dislike of an object that basically is just a piece of metal. I assume that
you don't think that the armed cop is going to pull the gun and shoot you
and since you are posting in what is a technical forum that it isn't going
to go off on its own.

Do you think nations should unilaterally disarm?

philosophically: yes.
but in the real world this is not possible.

At least you are reasonable on that.