A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Vanishing American Air Superiority"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 6th 10, 11:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Paul J. Adam[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:35:41 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
During the liveliest parts of 1972, USN Phantoms killed six NVAF MiGs
for every aircraft they lost to them, while the USAF managed a 2:1
ratio. (There are many factors in play for the difference, but it's
curious how smiting two enemy for every loss is considered
inadequate...)


The "liveliest parts of 1972 only involved late April to mid-October
and then two weeks in December. The ratios you quote were not at all
for the period in question. Yes, USN kill ratios were vastly higher
than USAF. But sorties in Pack VI, duration of exposure in the arena,
specialization of training, and (as you acknowledge) many factors were
at play.


And the US was always ahead on kills, even when fighting a politically
circumscribed conflict where the enemy was frequently allowed
untouchable bases and GCI. It's not clear that the F-4 was a disaster
for US military procurement, nor that buying "something else" (what?)
would have produced a better result.

Also strange is describing the F-104 as an "indescribable and dangerous
oddity" when it was the 1950s/1960s epitome of John Boyd's Light Weight
Fighter designed in response to user requests post-Korea: a pared-down
airframe optimised for speed, energy and agility, with useless wasteful
boondoggles like long-ranged radar, advanced countermeasures, or
sophisticated weapon-aiming systems left out to optimise the aircraft
for high-speed dogfighting.


Whoa. While Boyd's concept of a high/low mix, his vision of
specialization for a A/A and A/G team, and his E/M calculations were
all significant contributions to extend "light weight fighter" to the
F-104 is a reach.


Doesn't it fit many of his goals? Maximised energy, stripped of tedious
irrelevances like self-protection ECM, fast and agile with guns and
basic IR-AAMs.

And for sure Boyd would have *despised* that notably useless and
ineffective aircraft from Republic, the F-105 Thunderchief: Ed, can you
shed any light on how badly it performed and how hated it was by its
pilots?

The F-104 was the product of a period of fascination with Mach 2 and
expanding the envelope of performance. It was optimized for speed but
hardly for agility. It was extremely limited in first generation
versions as a weapon system in almost any mission beyond day VFR WVR
fighter.


But then, Boyd's acolytes seem to have considered that to be the goal.
Guided weapons and any other electronics were useless treason, good only
for funneling money from taxpayers to greedy contractors: the perfect
fighter had an engine, a gun, a pilot and as little else as possible.
(Wasn't a commercial Fuzzbuster assessed as being all the ECM a 'real
fighter' needed?)

Perhaps the USAF had no clear idea what it needed? The F-104 epitomised
most of Boyd's ideals, yet its limited combat service in US hands was
less than stellar. Similarly, the US operated the F-5, another austere,
cheap, agile fighter that should have delighted Boyd, yet chose not to
field it in large numbers at the frontline.


Actually the USAF never operated the F-5 as an operational system. The
F-5A assets were support for Foreign Military Sales training of
customer air forces. The Skoshi Tiger deployment was an Operational
Training & Evaluation exercise to determine suitabilty for a purchase
of operational airframes. The F-5E aggressors were training assets and
adoption of aircraft which had been destined for VNAF when the war
ended. No operational F-5s for the USAF.


I know I'm being a smartarse, but why not? Look at the roll rate of the
F-5 family (including the T-38), look at its small size and low cost,
see its successful utility as an Aggressor aircraft, why isn't it a
contender for a Boyd war-winner? It's got guns and Sidewinders and not
much else, it's cheap and agile and small, why isn't this an airframe
the USAF should procure by the thousand and send into frontline combat?

However, getting there involved breaking most of Boyd's rules.
Curiously, as late as "The Pentagon Paradox", Boyd's supporters were
bewailing the manner in which the F-16 and F-18 were "ruined" by putting
the "useless rubbish" back on them: the same useless equipment that
allowed them to be worldbeating combat aircraft rather than manned
target drones.


Actually Boyd was gone by the time the pounds for A/G were added to
the Eagles and the radar missile capability was fitted to Vipers.


I know, but it's amusing to read "The Pentagon Paradox" with the benefit
of hindsight. And Boyd was gone by the time that the F-15 and F-16
achieved most of their successes.

If there could be a real achievement of those Pentagon basement
warriors known as the Fighter Mafia it would be the conversion of the
USAF from a nuclear strike force and the incorporation of leadership
which could exploit tactical conventional forces rather than heavy
massed bombers.


On this I agree: I just read about the period in question, you were
wearing the uniform and flying combat missions at the time.


What's the "low" option for the US Army's armoured forces? They have a
very definite "high end" war-winner in the M1 Abrams, so where is the
"low end" tank?


Bradley.


By that argument the AC-130 is a "fighter". Armour and IFVs are
inherently different beasts, even if from a distance they're both metal
boxes on tracks with gun turrets. (Similarly, anyone who tries to call a
British Warrior, or Scimitar or Sabre CVR(T), a "tank" is just exposing
ignorance)

It's interesting that both the US and British Armies go high-end-only
for armour, while going for a high-low (or high-middle-low, or more
recently a bizarre flexible spectrum) for infantry units.

Actually it is more organizational than equipment. Building
divisions as Armor or Mech Infantry gives you a high/lo emphasis.


If you send tank-only units into battle they die, quickly and nastily.
The question becomes whether you support them with troops in IFVs that
can keep pace on a cross-country move and fight all the way, or whether
you use troops on foot or in light vehicles that can't fight beyond
self-defence but can keep pace with the tanks and carry the infantry's
kit and first-level supplies.

(Come on, Ed, you were an ALO, you picked some of this up...)

Many of these Chinese aircraft will have trouble flying to Taiwan, let
alone menacing any US interests less proximate. Unless the US plans to
invade China, then the swarms of elderly Chinese warplanes are prisoners
of their limited endurance.


The issue isn't one of defending the US from a swarm of enemy
aircraft. It is of responding after an unconventional attack such as a
limited nuclear missile strike or similar. It is of being able to
control airspace to support your offensive operational forces.

As long as the US has a global leadership role we will face a
probability of engaging in combat operations somewhere in the world.
That will require air dominance and force projection.


The cynic in me says the short-term answer to that problem is more and
better carrier battle groups, unless you can guarantee that you have
ready access to well-prepared airbases close to every credible threat.

The key, which will probably not happen, is to recognise that it's been
a quarter-century since work started on the Advanced Tactical Fighter
and that the next aircraft type needs to start work *now* to keep that
skillbase together and have a candidate ready to buy in 2020 (if
hurried) or 2030 (if no urgent issues arise).

But simply bleating "buy more F-22s!" reads as industry lobbying rather
than rational argument.


Only on Usenet does the detailed argument for more aircraft get
reduced to irrationality.

The key is exactly what you say. It takes time to develop and tool up
for a modern aircraft. The existing flight is obsolescent. The
Raptor/JSF are available as immediate replacements and the next-gen is
over-the-horizon.

The bleating is about filling the gaps for 25 years with 1980s
airplanes like 15/16/18s even in the latest blocks.


Even the US can't afford the F-22 in numbers (I said years ago that
while the F-22 was individually superior to the Typhoon, that even the
US would end up with fewer Raptors than we're getting Typhoons...) The
F-35 is also escalating in cost at a worrying rate, which is a concern
in the UK since we're also intending to rely on it. This isn't
catastrophic for the expeditionary-warfare case since the limit always
is "where can we base them?" and even the UK has run out of ramp space
before running out of full-capability airframes in the last decade or
two.

One suggestion is to "develop a new next-generation aircraft at a
sensible price". But I recall that the "Advanced Tactical Fighter" was
absolutely, definitely, guaranteed to come in at less than fifty million
dollars per airframe so it could replace F-15s on something approaching
a one-for-one exchange. Easy to say, harder to do. (I'll make the effort
as project manager, on a consultancy basis, if you give me a waiver for
the NOFORN issues, but I can't *guarantee* success)

There is no spare cash lying around in the UK for new defence projects
and I'd hazard that the US is not too different. Is the US at a real
risk of losing air superiority over the battlespace of its choosing in
the next decade? If not, then perhaps the priority for limited funding
is to get the next-generation aircraft started *now* and maintaining the
cadre of experienced pilots and ground crews for operations, and the
industrial base while some experienced hands can be kept. It's a risk:
we take enough of them already that either one more is no big deal or
else someone needs to persuade voters to pay to cover it.






--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam
Ads
  #22  
Old March 7th 10, 05:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Ray O'Hara[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"


"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message
, Mike
writes
The high-low mix was pioneered during WWII. Both the British and the
U.S. stumbled onto the concept without quite realizing what they were
doing. In the years before the war's outbreak, the British embarked on
a crash program to build eight-gun fighters for the defense of the
home islands. The premier model was the Supermarine Spitfire, one of
the legendary combat aircraft of the 20th century. But the Spitfire
was supplemented by the lesser-known but still capable Hawker
Hurricane. The Hurricane could take on the primary German fighter, the
Messerschmidt Bf -109, only with difficulty,


Not particularly, as the histories show... the Spitfire 1A had the edge on
the 109E, the Hurricane 1A was "merely" its equal.

As the war went on and Spitfires appeared in more substantial numbers,
the Hurricane took on the fighter-bomber role.


So did the Spitfire and Seafi aircraft that had no value once the enemy
air force was defeated, were of limited utility.


I'd look with interest at the USN aircraft of the time: the newer air
superiority fighters (Hellcats and Corsairs, then Bearcats and Tigercats)
all got good at strafing, bombing and rocketing ground targets once they
had shot down every flyable enemy aircraft.


There's also the point that RAF procurement was far less linear of "high
and low end fighter". Even during the Battle of Britain we had the
Hurricane and Spitfire as fighters... plus unfortunate concepts that
didn't work well such as the Defiant and the Blenheim IF, and a few
Whirlwinds that were held back by engine trouble from their full
potential.

Later, we had "fighters" like the Beaufighter and Mosquito VI, which were
fighters in the same way the F-105 was: powerful strike aircraft that were
ill-advised to turn with a small, agile foe but could cruelly punish any
enemy careless enough to get into their sights. We also had the Typhoon,
designed as an air-superiority fighter but highly effective as a strike
aircraft, the Tempest (was it the "high end" or "low end" compared to the
Spitfire?)

Coming into the '60s without a fighter to carry out its basic
missions, the USAF was forced to purchase the F-4 Phantom II,
developed on behalf of the enemy service, the U.S. Navy. While an
excellent aircraft, the F-4 was in many ways the apotheosis of the
fighter-bomber, too heavy and lacking the agility to fill the air-
superiority role.


During the liveliest parts of 1972, USN Phantoms killed six NVAF MiGs for
every aircraft they lost to them, while the USAF managed a 2:1 ratio.
(There are many factors in play for the difference, but it's curious how
smiting two enemy for every loss is considered inadequate...)

Also strange is describing the F-104 as an "indescribable and dangerous
oddity" when it was the 1950s/1960s epitome of John Boyd's Light Weight
Fighter designed in response to user requests post-Korea: a pared-down
airframe optimised for speed, energy and agility, with useless wasteful
boondoggles like long-ranged radar, advanced countermeasures, or
sophisticated weapon-aiming systems left out to optimise the aircraft for
high-speed dogfighting.

Perhaps the USAF had no clear idea what it needed? The F-104 epitomised
most of Boyd's ideals, yet its limited combat service in US hands was less
than stellar. Similarly, the US operated the F-5, another austere, cheap,
agile fighter that should have delighted Boyd, yet chose not to field it
in large numbers at the frontline.

Together, the F-15 and F-16 stand as the most effective fighter team
on record. The F-15 compiled a kill ratio of 105 kills to zero losses.
While the F-16's record was only half that, it more than effectively
filled the swing role as the primary high-speed attack aircraft in
theaters including Serbia and Iraq. Neither aircraft ever suffered a
loss in air-to-air combat.


However, getting there involved breaking most of Boyd's rules. Curiously,
as late as "The Pentagon Paradox", Boyd's supporters were bewailing the
manner in which the F-16 and F-18 were "ruined" by putting the "useless
rubbish" back on them: the same useless equipment that allowed them to be
worldbeating combat aircraft rather than manned target drones.

It would appear that the high-low thesis is as well established as any
military concept ever gets.


What's the "low" option for the US Army's armoured forces? They have a
very definite "high end" war-winner in the M1 Abrams, so where is the "low
end" tank?

Suppose, if things get
hot, our 120 planes are facing five hundred, a thousand, or even more
fifth-generation enemy fighters? (China today fields roughly 2,000
fighter aircraft.) What happens then?


Shades of the 1980s when analysts breathlessly counted every Soviet tank
that could possibly ever be fielded, looked at the latest and best, then
pronounced that we faced "fifty thousand T-80 tanks".

In fact we faced a few hundred T-80s, with a tail of older and less
advanced vehicles, and a notional swarm of warehoused T-34s left over from
the Second World War. Similarly, China's "2,000 fighters" are largely
outdated relics - MiG-21 copies and the like - and China has at least the
same constraints on replacing them one-for-one with modern aircraft as the
US does with maintaining its 1970s numbers while increasing individual
capability.

Many of these Chinese aircraft will have trouble flying to Taiwan, let
alone menacing any US interests less proximate. Unless the US plans to
invade China, then the swarms of elderly Chinese warplanes are prisoners
of their limited endurance.



The F-22 is a ferociously expensive beast, though very capable with it.
However, there is a good argument - though it falls apart against
traditional politicans' short-sightedness - that the design and
development is the key input to maintain capability, and that limited
procurement in the face of a limited threat (what aircraft in hostile
hands, flying today or in the next five years, can seriously discomfit a
F-22?) is a pragmatic response to reality.

The key, which will probably not happen, is to recognise that it's been a
quarter-century since work started on the Advanced Tactical Fighter and
that the next aircraft type needs to start work *now* to keep that
skillbase together and have a candidate ready to buy in 2020 (if hurried)
or 2030 (if no urgent issues arise).

But simply bleating "buy more F-22s!" reads as industry lobbying rather
than rational argument.


The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically
equals. the Spit is prettier
British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.

as for aerial kill loss ratios, claims well exceed kills that is true for
every war.

Eric Hammel in his Books on Guadalcanal took a perverse delight in exposing
Joe Foss's claims of kills as being hollow
he cross referenced Foss'sclaims with Japanese records and found on several
occasions when Foss had victories, especially multiple victories Japanese
records showed no losses.
and Joe wasn't the only over-claimer

in the days of gunfighters speed, rate of climb and ceilling seemed to
matter more than turning.


  #23  
Old March 7th 10, 06:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Ray O'Hara[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"


"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
news
In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:35:41 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
During the liveliest parts of 1972, USN Phantoms killed six NVAF MiGs
for every aircraft they lost to them, while the USAF managed a 2:1
ratio. (There are many factors in play for the difference, but it's
curious how smiting two enemy for every loss is considered
inadequate...)


The "liveliest parts of 1972 only involved late April to mid-October
and then two weeks in December. The ratios you quote were not at all
for the period in question. Yes, USN kill ratios were vastly higher
than USAF. But sorties in Pack VI, duration of exposure in the arena,
specialization of training, and (as you acknowledge) many factors were
at play.


And the US was always ahead on kills, even when fighting a politically
circumscribed conflict where the enemy was frequently allowed untouchable
bases and GCI. It's not clear that the F-4 was a disaster for US military
procurement, nor that buying "something else" (what?) would have produced
a better result.


What were U.S. bases in Japan during Korea and VN but untouchable bases?
it always amazes me how our side cries the enemy was cheating by using out
of theater bases when we were doing it to a bigger degree.

and there is curious incident where 2 USAF planes from Taiwan"accidently"
shot up an airbase in China during the Korean war.


  #24  
Old March 7th 10, 06:34 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Ken S. Tucker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 442
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

On Mar 6, 8:34 am, "Ray O'Hara" wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...

.....

The F-22 is another AVRO Arrow, a wonderful plane designed to fight the
last
war{the one we didn't have}.


A really good weapon system, like the F-22, may never need to be used,
because it's an intimidating deterence, that way it prevents conflict.
Walk softly, carry a big stick.
Ken


the only weapon in history that can make that claim is the A-Bomb. and we
still have plenty of those.


Ever heard of going to a gunfight with a rubber knife.
Ken
  #25  
Old March 7th 10, 06:47 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Paul Saccani[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 00:54:20 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
wrote:


The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically
equals. the Spit is prettier


The Spitfire and Hurricane were not isolated from one another - in
order to make the Hurricane more competitive against the Bf109, they
got the more powerful versions of the Merlin, with the Spitfire still
able to be superior with the lower powered versions. This was one of
Freeman's decisions to make best use of the available resources.

British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.

Indeed, to say the least.
Cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia
  #26  
Old March 7th 10, 09:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Andrew Swallow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

Ray O'Hara wrote:
{snip}


you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?

{snip}

Next wars -

Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.

USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America

West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
of the current war)

USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil

China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
may decide to stay out.)

Andrew Swallow
  #27  
Old March 7th 10, 09:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Andrew Swallow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

frank wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:52 pm, 150flivver wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:35 pm, Richard wrote:



On Mar 5, 12:39 pm, "Ray O'Hara" wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:10:15 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...an_air_superio...
Vanishing American Air Superiority
what a load of ****.
That's a difficult argument to refute. Penetrating analysis at its
finest.
What parts? Spit/Hurricane? Sabre/Thunderjet? Century series? Boyd and
hi/lo mix?
You've given us so much to think about Ray.
what better planes being planned never mind actually being built by anybody
else.
the points the author makes are false strawman types.
the Brits on 1940 didn't need two types, they needed more spits, they were
building them.
maybe you can say we have "hurricanes" now but who is building 109s?
if there were no 109s then the Hurricane would have ruled the sky.
technology is moving past the manned fighter. building the most advanced
manned fighter now would be akin to building the most advanced bi-plane in
1935.
what we have is better now than what others have now, building a hugely
expensive "better" plane that will be obsolete in short order is a waste
Worse. Given the cost of the airframe, maintenance, crew training and
support vs Drones...its more like bldg BB in 1935 instead of carriers.

Aren't y'all making quite a leap saying UAVs have surpassed manned
fighters when to my knowledge, not a single UAV has ever successfully
engaged a manned fighter. Suddenly manned fighters are obsolete.
There's a bit of difference between firing a hellfire or dropping a
GBU on an unsuspecting pickup truck and attacking an IADS. UAVs may
be useful weapons but they hardly are close to having the speed,
range, flexibility or firepower of a manned aircraft.


Not to mention I'd trust Ed on scene far more than some throttle
jockey watching screens at Nellis. Or Yeager.

I've heard this we can do it unmanned before. Some stuff, maybe.
Dumping manned fighters for UAVs. Stupidity. And you know what, when
we need manned fighters in the future, its not a matter of going to
wal mart and taking 2 of them.


The next successful fighter may be a stand-off launcher of missiles
that can be guided to their incoming target by the weapons officer.

Andrew Swallow
  #28  
Old March 7th 10, 09:58 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Alan Dicey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

Paul Saccani wrote:
wrote:
British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.

Indeed, to say the least.


*Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both
sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale.

We still won.

The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times
reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one
reason why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th
was such a shock.

"Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..."
  #29  
Old March 7th 10, 10:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
William Black[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"


"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
...
Ray O'Hara wrote:
{snip}


you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?

{snip}

Next wars -

Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.


Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works...

USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America


Not unless there's a major change in US foreign policy. They usually just
forment a coup and deal with the military.

West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
of the current war)


The US relationship with Pakistan seems to indicate that it doesn't amtter
who the government is or what they say.

USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil


Possible. What will Iran use for weapons?

China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
may decide to stay out.)


Interesting idea.

How does China get their army there?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

  #30  
Old March 7th 10, 10:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Andrew Swallow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

Paul J. Adam wrote:
{snip}


The cynic in me says the short-term answer to that problem is more and
better carrier battle groups, unless you can guarantee that you have
ready access to well-prepared airbases close to every credible threat.


(Ex-)Prime Minister Tony Blair has been making it clear for several
years that he wanted something done about Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, no
African country was willing to permit use of their airports.

Andrew Swallow
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1.The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of ironflowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by"Lawless" Bushite frank Naval Aviation 1 August 30th 08 12:35 PM
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1. The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of iron flowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushi Charlie Wolf[_2_] Naval Aviation 0 August 29th 08 03:19 AM
Corporate News Whores are Evil to All Humans Being - PentagonWon't Probe KBR [GANG] Rape Charges - "Heaven Won't Take [bushite] Marines" -American corporations actively attempt to MURDER American women, and American"Men" refus WiseGuy Naval Aviation 0 January 9th 08 02:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.