Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160721 > unrolled thread

Computers anyone?

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Computers anyone? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-03-09 08:22 +0000
    Re: Computers anyone? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 19:25 +1100
    Re: Computers anyone? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-09 13:41 +0000
      Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 06:48 -0700
      Re: Computers anyone? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-09 14:00 +0000
        Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:46 +1100
      Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:40 +1100
      Re: Computers anyone? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-09 13:50 -0600
      Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 17:32 -0500
        Re: Computers anyone? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-10 13:24 +0000
          Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:56 -0500
          Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 07:29 -0700
            Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 20:19 -0500
            Re: Computers anyone? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-11 13:08 +0000
              Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 04:02 +1100
                Re: Computers anyone? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-12 13:34 +0000
                  Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 04:35 +1100
                  Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 15:54 -0500
                  Re: Computers anyone? pechter@chuckie.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-03-12 20:51 +0000
                    Re: Computers anyone? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-13 07:44 +0000
                      Re: Computers anyone? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-11 17:00 -0400
                        Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:07 -0400
            Re: Computers anyone? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-03-12 15:10 -0800
            Re: Computers anyone? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:03 -0800
              Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-12 18:34 -0800
              Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 15:28 +1100
    Re: Computers anyone? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-09 14:08 +0000
    Re: Computers anyone? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-09 14:41 +0000
    Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-09 07:27 -0800
      Re: Computers anyone? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-09 13:44 -0600
        Re: Computers anyone? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-09 20:15 +0000
        Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 17:38 -0500
          Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-09 17:14 -0800
            Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-09 17:35 -0800
              Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 21:31 -0500
                Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-09 20:25 -0800
                  Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 01:55 -0700
                    Re: Computers anyone? mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-10 11:47 +0000
                      Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:54 -0500
                      Re: Computers anyone? Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2016-03-30 12:47 -0400
                    Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 04:01 +1100
                  Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-10 09:04 -0800
                  Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 04:28 +1100
                  Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-10 13:44 -0800
                  Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-10 19:28 -0800
                    Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:16 -0500
                      Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 10:37 -0800
                        Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-12 12:37 -0800
                          Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-17 09:25 -0700
          Re: Computers anyone? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-09 21:35 -0600
            Re: Computers anyone? mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-10 11:52 +0000
              Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:55 -0500
          Re: Computers anyone? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-10 13:53 +0000
            Re: Computers anyone? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-10 14:21 -0600
              Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-10 13:17 -0800
              Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 20:29 -0500
            Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 20:17 -0500
        Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-09 16:42 -0800
          Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 20:19 -0500
    Re: Computers anyone? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-09 12:13 -0500
      Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:58 +1100
        Re: Computers anyone? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-10 06:37 -0500
    Re: Computers anyone? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-09 13:39 -0600
      Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 01:55 -0700
        Re: Computers anyone? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-10 09:43 -0600
        Re: Computers anyone? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-10 14:06 -0600
          Re: Computers anyone? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-11 13:08 +0000
          Re: Computers anyone? mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-11 14:10 +0000
            Re: Computers anyone? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-11 16:21 +0000
            Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 17:04 -0700
              Re: Computers anyone? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:04 +0000
                Re: Computers anyone? mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-12 19:32 +0000
                  Re: Computers anyone? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-03-21 20:17 -0400
              Re: Computers anyone? mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-12 19:30 +0000
    Re: Computers anyone? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-09 12:14 -0800
    Re: Computers anyone? hankvc@blackhole.lostwells.org (Hank) - 2016-03-12 07:34 +0000
      Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 07:30 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#160805

"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1257273418.479292661.092193.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org...
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
>
>> (In WWII, we
>> didn't shoot down every Japanese Zero; we just sank their carriers.)
>
> We must have been pretty close.

By sinking their carriers.

By the end of the war they were left with
> trainers and some slapped-together  pieces of junk made out of plywood,
> IIRC.  Of course, they didn't have trained pilots left to fly them, 
> either.

Because we sank their carriers. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160807

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> This is F-22: Can't Fly Won't Die
> http://nypost.com/2009/07/17/cant-fly-wont-die/
>
> Pilots call high-maintenance aircraft "hangar queens."  Well, the F-22's
> a hangar empress. After three expensive decades in development, the
> plane meets fewer than one-third of its specified requirements.


Part of F-22 "hanger empress" is stealth coating ... there are other
references that now the coating maintenance bays are working around the
clock overtime.
http://www.tyndall.af.mil/News/Features/Display/tabid/6651/Article/669883/lo-how-the-f-22-gets-its-stealth.aspx

and then regarding the tight embrace with congress & politics

This Map Shows Why The F-35 Has Turned Into A Trillion-Dollar Fiasco
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-map-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8
Flawed F-35 Too Big to Kill as Lockheed Hooks 45 States
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states

military-industrial complex posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#military.industrial.complex

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160809

"Anne & Lynn Wheeler" <lynn@garlic.com> wrote in message 
news:874mcfvu0v.fsf@garlic.com...
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>> The F-35 is a fine example of why a committee should not be allowed to
>> design airplanes, and more importantly why a committee containing
>> representatives of the Air Force should not be allowed to participate
>> in the design of naval aircraft.
>
> This is F-22: Can't Fly Won't Die
> http://nypost.com/2009/07/17/cant-fly-wont-die/
>
> Pilots call high-maintenance aircraft "hangar queens."  Well, the F-22's
> a hangar empress. After three expensive decades in development, the
> plane meets fewer than one-third of its specified requirements.
>
> ...
>
> Anyway, an enemy wouldn't have to down a single F-22 to defeat it.
> Just strike the hi-tech maintenance sites, and it's game over.

The problem with that line is that there aren't any enemies that can do 
that.

> (In WWII, we didn't shoot down every Japanese Zero; we just sank their
> carriers.) The F-22 isn't going to operate off a dirt strip with a repair 
> tent.

Doesn’t need to do that.

> But this is all about lobbying, not about lobbing bombs. Cynically,
> Lockheed Martin distributed the F-22 workload to nearly every state,
> employing under-qualified sub-contractors to create local financial
> stakes in the program. Great politics -- but the result has been a
> quality collapse.
>
> ... snip ...
>
> finally ended F-22 ... but used same tactics with F-35 process.
> http://www.dailytech.com/Defense+Secretary+Gates+Proposes+Ending+F22+Fighter+VH71+Helicopter+Production/article14776.htm
>
> Originally F-35 design did cost(?) reduced compromise as bomb truck
> assuming F-22 flying cover and provide air superiority role.
>
> this has long detailed discussion changes from original prototype and
> "true" stealth (analysis done before F-22 was terminated)
> http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html
>
> diagram 4 has F-35 radar signature at different wavelengths.  VHF/L can
> find/track but difficult for targeting. latest processing chips with
> multi-band radar ... for tracking&targeting.
> http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html#mozTocId269596
>
> This is separate from design/weight penalty for enabling (F-35B) Marine
> corp version (short take-off-land).
>
> besides "cyberdumb" in problems with the F-35 program
> http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2016/the-f-35-still-failing-to-impress.html
>
> there is lots of "cyberdumb" with adversaries dancing
> through our networks taking detailed designs of advanced
> weapons
> http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2013/05/28/us-weapons-compromised-chinese-cyberspies/
>
> The designs included those for the advanced Patriot missile system,
> known as PAC-3; an Army system for shooting down ballistic missiles,
> known as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD; and the
> Navy's Aegis ballistic-missile defense system.Also identified in the
> report are vital combat aircraft and ships, including the F/A-18 fighter
> jet, the V-22 Osprey, the Black Hawk helicopter and the Navy's new
> Littoral Combat Ship, which is designed to patrol waters close to
> shore. Also on the list is the most expensive weapons system ever built
> -- the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is on track to cost about $1.4
> trillion.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160822

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> This is F-22: Can't Fly Won't Die
> http://nypost.com/2009/07/17/cant-fly-wont-die/
>
> Pilots call high-maintenance aircraft "hangar queens."  Well, the F-22's
> a hangar empress. After three expensive decades in development, the
> plane meets fewer than one-third of its specified requirements.
>
> ...
>
> Anyway, an enemy wouldn't have to down a single F-22 to defeat it. Just
> strike the hi-tech maintenance sites, and it's game over. (In WWII, we
> didn't shoot down every Japanese Zero; we just sank their carriers.) The
> F-22 isn't going to operate off a dirt strip with a repair tent.

not only is there lots vulnerabilities associated with extreme
complexity of maintenance
http://www.tyndall.af.mil/News/Features/Display/tabid/6651/Article/669883/lo-how-the-f-22-gets-its-stealth.aspx

there is also vulnerabilities from loads of advanced electronic
counterfeit parts

Probe finds 'flood' of fake military parts from China in U.S. equipment
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/22/probe-finds-flood-of-fake-military-parts-from-china-in-u-s-equipment/
Flood of fake Chinese parts in US military gear - report
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-defense-counterfeit-idUSL1E8GMMCV20120522
Fake Parts are Everywhere
http://www.defensetech.org/2012/05/22/fake-parts-are-everywhere/

there is also vulnerabilities where the advanced electronic parts aren't
counterfeit ... they are sourced and produced in china ... that US
military has to rely on.

Richard Clarke: All U.S. Electronics From China Could Be Infected
http://www.defensetech.org/2012/03/29/richard-clarke-all-u-s-electronics-from-china-could-be-infected/

and separate from the other cyberdumb issues.

military-industrial(-congressional) complex posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#military.industrial.complex

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160835

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> This is F-22: Can't Fly Won't Die
> http://nypost.com/2009/07/17/cant-fly-wont-die/


another issue with F-35 ... even if it had no problems and worked as
advertized and didn't have big budget and schedule overruns ...  it was
designed as a bomb truck with F-22 flying cover and providing air
superiority

More Ambiguous F-35 Remarks by USAF's Gen. Hostage
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/154510/usaf%E2%80%99s-gen-hostage-speaks-again-on-f_35.html

Gen. Hostage, head of the US Air Force's Air Combat Command, gained some
fame earlier this year when he said that "If I do not keep that F-22
fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant [as] the F-35 is
not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22."

... snip ...

other

Fast Forward "Fast Transients": John Boyd, the F-22 and F-35 in 2016
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-131210-1.html

declassified "Aerial Attack Study" by (then) Capt. John Boyd, 1Nov1963
http://www.dnipogo.org/boyd/pdf/boydaerialattack.pdf

Joint Strike Fighter; includes graph compares F-22A, T-50, J-20, F-35A,
SU-35S
http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html


military-industrial(-congressional) complex posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#military.industrial.complex
Boyd posts & URL
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subboyd.html

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160850

In article <87bn6lzoad.fsf@garlic.com>, lynn@garlic.com says...
> 
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> > This is F-22: Can't Fly Won't Die
> > http://nypost.com/2009/07/17/cant-fly-wont-die/
> 
> 
> another issue with F-35 ... even if it had no problems and worked as
> advertized and didn't have big budget and schedule overruns ...  it was
> designed as a bomb truck with F-22 flying cover and providing air
> superiority

A bomb pickup-truck perhaps--short range and small payload, vs the bomb 
18-wheeler that is the B-52.
 
> More Ambiguous F-35 Remarks by USAF's Gen. Hostage
> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/154510/usaf%E2%80%99s-gen-hostage-speaks-again-on-f_35.html
> 
> Gen. Hostage, head of the US Air Force's Air Combat Command, gained some
> fame earlier this year when he said that "If I do not keep that F-22
> fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant [as] the F-35 is
> not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22."
> 
> ... snip ...
> 
> other
> 
> Fast Forward "Fast Transients": John Boyd, the F-22 and F-35 in 2016
> http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-131210-1.html
> 
> declassified "Aerial Attack Study" by (then) Capt. John Boyd, 1Nov1963
> http://www.dnipogo.org/boyd/pdf/boydaerialattack.pdf
> 
> Joint Strike Fighter; includes graph compares F-22A, T-50, J-20, F-35A,
> SU-35S
> http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
> 
> 
> military-industrial(-congressional) complex posts
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#military.industrial.complex
> Boyd posts & URL
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subboyd.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160867

"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> A bomb pickup-truck perhaps--short range and small payload, vs the bomb 
> 18-wheeler that is the B-52.

the F-35 stealth optimized for penetrating enemy ground-to-air defenses
... large numbers of F-35 then drop payload to take out all the
ground-to-air defenses ... so they have nothing to worry about on their
backside when returning ... and F-22 flying cover for any air-to-air
threats.

problem is latest generation of advanced chips with multi-band radar can
track & target stealth.

the B-52 hasn't been overlooked ... there are proposals using large
flock of F-35s out in front trailed by fleet of B-52 stuffed entirely
full ... with the F-35s providing targeting for the arsenal carried by
the B-52s. I posted a snarky comment about the spin in the B-52 proposal
wording as "complement/supplement the F-35" ... as opposed to
"compensate for the F-35 shortcomings".

since the F-35 payload is so small, the trailing B-52s would provide the
air-to-air and air-to-ground arsenal needed for the mission.

Pentagon "Arsenal Plane" Likely to be Modified B-52 
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1650624-pentagon-arsenal-plane-likely-to-be-b-52
The Pentagon Is Building the "Arsenal Plane," a Giant Flying Battlewagon
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a19262/pentagon-announces-arsenal-plane-platform/

In theory, the F35 are manned "scouts" and the arsenal plane could be a
drone (all part of justifying F35 and keeping it from being killed off).

This Map Shows Why The F-35 Has Turned Into A Trillion-Dollar Fiasco
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-map-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8
Flawed F-35 Too Big to Kill as Lockheed Hooks 45 States
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states
military-industrial(-congressional) complex posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#military.industrial.complex

More realistic would be swarms of drone scouts with any humans back in
the arsenal plane.

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160907

latest in discussion groups

finally somebody has decided to use
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ov-10-broncos-were-sent-to-fight-isis-and-they-kicked-a-1764407068

Instead of providing light support aircraft loaded with technology like
the OV-10 Bronco, we spent billions fighting men in mud huts carrying
rusty AK-47s with F-16s and F-15s costing tens of thousands an hour to
operate. We literally flew the wings off our fighter fleet in the
process.

...

the latest flavor
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/12/28/after-delays-a29-attack-aircraft-to-arrive-afghanistan-2016.html

of course there isn't trillions of dollars for the
military-industrial(-congressional) complex. Part of the current cry
is no matter how bad the F-35 is ... it is the only thing there is ...
and if they can wear-out the current air fleet, it will accelerate
the spending of trillions on the F-35.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#military.industrial.complex

One of the comments was picture/reference to RAF&Rhodesian Hunter crews
in 1954 practiced by shooting holes in trash can (which is compareable
to what they are using F15s&F16s now).

GAO air power analysis of Desert Storm (42 days, only last 100hrs
involved land warfare). One of the most effective were A10 with 30mm
... used a million 30mm @$13 ... or $13M (and enormously so in
effectiveness/$$) ... one of the reasons that MICC doesn't like the A10.

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161157

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Is Still a Huge Mess; Test report
underscores ongoing problems with the world's biggest warplane program
http://warisboring.com/articles/the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-is-still-a-huge-mess/
F-35 Chief: Think Very, Very Hard Before Making Another Joint Fighter
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/03/f-35-chief-think-very-very-hard-making-another-joint-fighter/126587/?
U.S. General Admits F-35 Is Actually Three Separate Airplanes;
Commonality is a myth for 'joint' stealth fighter
http://warisboring.com/articles/u-s-general-admits-f-35-is-actually-three-separate-airplanes/
Military Admits Billion-Dollar War Toy F-35 Is F**ked
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/17/military-admits-billion-dollar-war-toy-f-35-is-f-ked.html

That assumed that the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C would be highly
similar. You'd build one basic fuselage and cockpit and fit different
wings or the extra engine, as needed. The military aimed for 70-percent
"commonality." In other words, three-quarters of, say, an Air Force
F-35A would match, for example, a Navy F-35C.

70-percent commonality proved impossible as each military branch
demanded increasingly specific qualities in its F-35s. As a result,
today the various models are mostly incompatible. "It's 20- to
25-percent commonality," Bogdan said on March 10.

... snip ...

20yrs ago we spent some time talking to BCS about commonality in 757 and
767 (and others) .... not that the planes were common but they had huge
amount of common sub-components. Scenario was 50yrs on, could you part
out one kind of plane for spare parts repairing other kind of
planes. The issue was that the engineering design was in proprietary
DBMS which didn't provide an interface to query where were all specific
sub=components in a plane (furthermore the parent of the engineering
design application was associated with Boeing's major competitor).

Trivia: as undergraduate in the 60s, I had been hired as a fulltime
Boeing employee to help with the formation of BCS (consolidate all
dataprocessing in an independent business unit to better monetize the
investment, including offering services to non-Boeing entities; one of
the precursors to public cloud).

Other trivia: I worked on the original RDBMS (System/R) ... but was also
called in to help with implementation of a different kind of relational
DBMS. System/R had some implementation optimization to make account
number-based financial transactions (single key) more efficient.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#systemr

The other kind of relational DBMS was specifically designed for being
able to simultaneously deal with information from multiple different
arbitrary views (as well as supporting NULLS and 3-value logic).


-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160769

On 09-Mar-16 16:38, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <4qidnScPE9p74X3LnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, 
> jmelson@wustl.edu says...
>> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>> [John Boyd] used it to re-design the F-15, changing it from an
>>> 80,000-pound, swing-wing, sluggish behemoth, to a 40,000-pound
>>> fixed-wing, high-performance, maneuvering fighter.
>>
>> Uhh, the Navy's F-14 was swing wing, the F-15 is fixed.
> 
> Note that that particular "sluggish behemoth" ...

I think you both misread the above; what I see is that _before_ Boyd got
involved, the F-15's design was bad, but he used "it" (whatever that
meant in context) to make the design much better.

> ... is so fearsome that one lighting off its radar will ground whole 
> third-world air forces and when it was removed from service every 
> single aircraft in the inventory was destroyed lest the one third-
> world air force that had a few of them get spare parts and thus do
> untold damage to the supposedly vastly superior lightweight fighters
> that can't force it to engage, can't run away from it, and can't
> shoot at it until long after it has killed them.

The F-15 was indeed a fearsome fighter; the F-22 is better, and a few
later MiGs could match it, but nothing else can even touch it, and yes,
we don't want anyone else to have them--not even our allies.

OTOH, the F-16 was a ground attack plane, not a fighter; ditto for the
F-117.  However, due to Congress's stupidity, the USAF had to designate
them both "fighter" planes to get them funded.  And we have no problem
selling thousands of them to other countries.

The idea is that a few (very expensive) F-15s would clear the air over
the target so that a bunch of (very cheap) F-16s could come in and bomb
said target.  That is _exactly_ what the USAF did in Iraq I, with the
addition of F-117s taking out SAM/AAA sites before the F-15s.  Those
cool videos of laser- and GPS-guided bombs taking out tanks or flying in
windows were courtesy of F-16s.

The F-35 was supposed to replace the F-16 and F-18, but the F-22 was too
expensive, so Congress killed it and demanded the F-35 design be changed
to do both roles--and as a result, costs have spiraled out of control to
an even greater degree than the F-22's did.

The reality is that you can buy at least a dozen F-16s for the price of
one F-35, and probably two or three by the time it's in production--and
an F-35 can't even beat _one_ F-16 in combat, much less a dozen of them
at once.  Even an F-15 or F-22 would struggle at that, but only because
it'd run out of missiles before it ran out of targets to kill.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160785

On 2016-03-10, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 09-Mar-16 16:38, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <4qidnScPE9p74X3LnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, 
>> jmelson@wustl.edu says...
>>> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>>> [John Boyd] used it to re-design the F-15, changing it from an
>>>> 80,000-pound, swing-wing, sluggish behemoth, to a 40,000-pound
>>>> fixed-wing, high-performance, maneuvering fighter.
>>>
>>> Uhh, the Navy's F-14 was swing wing, the F-15 is fixed.
>> 
>> Note that that particular "sluggish behemoth" ...
>
> I think you both misread the above; what I see is that _before_ Boyd got
> involved, the F-15's design was bad, but he used "it" (whatever that
> meant in context) to make the design much better.
>
>> ... is so fearsome that one lighting off its radar will ground whole 
>> third-world air forces and when it was removed from service every 
>> single aircraft in the inventory was destroyed lest the one third-
>> world air force that had a few of them get spare parts and thus do
>> untold damage to the supposedly vastly superior lightweight fighters
>> that can't force it to engage, can't run away from it, and can't
>> shoot at it until long after it has killed them.
>
> The F-15 was indeed a fearsome fighter; the F-22 is better, and a few
> later MiGs could match it, but nothing else can even touch it, and yes,
> we don't want anyone else to have them--not even our allies.
>


Article about Uk destroyers, which use US technology, in intermittent
service with the Royal navy, in "Private Eye" magazine. If any paart 
that is designated `secret' by the US goes wrong, it can only be repaired,
replaaced by US personnel. So, if a part ggoes wrong, can take a while to
 fix it.

-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160793

In article <slrnne2nvc.199.mausg@smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says...
> 
> On 2016-03-10, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> > On 09-Mar-16 16:38, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> In article <4qidnScPE9p74X3LnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, 
> >> jmelson@wustl.edu says...
> >>> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> >>>> [John Boyd] used it to re-design the F-15, changing it from an
> >>>> 80,000-pound, swing-wing, sluggish behemoth, to a 40,000-pound
> >>>> fixed-wing, high-performance, maneuvering fighter.
> >>>
> >>> Uhh, the Navy's F-14 was swing wing, the F-15 is fixed.
> >> 
> >> Note that that particular "sluggish behemoth" ...
> >
> > I think you both misread the above; what I see is that _before_ Boyd got
> > involved, the F-15's design was bad, but he used "it" (whatever that
> > meant in context) to make the design much better.
> >
> >> ... is so fearsome that one lighting off its radar will ground whole 
> >> third-world air forces and when it was removed from service every 
> >> single aircraft in the inventory was destroyed lest the one third-
> >> world air force that had a few of them get spare parts and thus do
> >> untold damage to the supposedly vastly superior lightweight fighters
> >> that can't force it to engage, can't run away from it, and can't
> >> shoot at it until long after it has killed them.
> >
> > The F-15 was indeed a fearsome fighter; the F-22 is better, and a few
> > later MiGs could match it, but nothing else can even touch it, and yes,
> > we don't want anyone else to have them--not even our allies.
> >
> 
> 
> Article about Uk destroyers, which use US technology, in intermittent
> service with the Royal navy, in "Private Eye" magazine. If any paart 
> that is designated `secret' by the US goes wrong, it can only be repaired,
> replaaced by US personnel. So, if a part ggoes wrong, can take a while to
>  fix it.

However I wasn't talking about the F-15 or the F-22, I was talking about 
the Navy's swing-wing behemoth, which is still in service in Iran.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160791

"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>In article <4qidnScPE9p74X3LnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, 
>jmelson@wustl.edu says...
>> 
>> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>> 
>> > Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> writes:
>> >> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
>> > 
>> > The Outrageous Adolescence of the F-16; The Viper was small, fast, and
>> > in your face
>> > http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/outrageous-adolescence-
>> f-16-180949491/?no-ist
>> > 
>> > 9yrs ago, John Boyd, January 23, 1927 - March 9, 1997, tribute in USNI
>> > Procedings, for those w/o membership ... it is here at wayback machine
>> > 
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20011224132049/http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/cspinney/c199.txt
>> > 
>> > He used it to re-design the F-15, changing it from an 80,000-pound,
>> > swing-wing, sluggish behemoth, to a 40,000-pound fixed-wing,
>> > high-performance, maneuvering fighter.
>> Uhh, the Navy's F-14 was swing wing, the F-15 is fixed.
>
>Note that that particular "sluggish behemoth" is so fearsome that one 
>lighting off its radar will ground whole third-world air forces and when 
>it was removed from service every single aircraft in the inventory was 
>destroyed lest the one third-world air force that had a few of them get 
>spare parts and thus do untold damage to the supposedly vastly superior 
>lightweight fighters that can't force it to engage, can't run away from 
>it, and can't shoot at it until long after it has killed them.
>
>Oh, and I've seen a classified demo of the sluggish behemoth making 
>maximum-performance maneuvers.  I pity the fool . . .

Neither of you appear to understand that Lynn was referring to the
original F-15 design as a "sluggish behemoth", not the F-14.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160818

Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Neither of you appear to understand that Lynn was referring to the
> original F-15 design as a "sluggish behemoth", not the F-14.
DoD put out a request for the "F-X" and may have suggested it needed swing 
wings, but McD proved that they were not actually NEEDED to fill all the 
requirements, at least after several rounds of requests and proposals.

McDonnell-Douglas proposed a non-swing wing aircraft, and went on to build a 
prototype.  I saw it fly in 1973 at Wallops Station, a guy flew over from 
Pax River with it.  VERRRRY impressive handling and climb rate.

As far as I know, this became the F-15 with no large changes.  They did make 
some modest changes to the control surface areas.


Jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160821

Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> writes:
> DoD put out a request for the "F-X" and may have suggested it needed swing 
> wings, but McD proved that they were not actually NEEDED to fill all the 
> requirements, at least after several rounds of requests and proposals.
>
> McDonnell-Douglas proposed a non-swing wing aircraft, and went on to build a 
> prototype.  I saw it fly in 1973 at Wallops Station, a guy flew over from 
> Pax River with it.  VERRRRY impressive handling and climb rate.
>
> As far as I know, this became the F-15 with no large changes.  They
> did make some modest changes to the control surface areas.

dates off by nearly a decade.

FX early to mid-60s, all designs swing-wing and 60,000lbs or more , Boyd
design early 1967, MD included in 1967 2nd phase selection using Boyd
design/spec, MD final selection dec1969, 1st flt july 1972, full-rate
production six months later

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle

An official requirements document was finalized in October, and sent out
as a request for proposals (RFP) to 13 companies on 8 December
1965. Eight companies responded with proposals. Following a downselect,
four companies were asked to provide further developments. In total,
they developed some 500 design concepts. Typical designs featured
variable-sweep wings, weighed over 60,000 pounds (27,000 kg), included a
top speed of Mach 2.7 and a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.75.[12] When the
proposals were studied in July 1966, the aircraft were roughly the size
and weight of the TFX, and like that aircraft, a design that could not
be considered an air superiority fighter.[13]

...

This led to John Boyd's Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory, which
stressed that extra power and maneuverability were key aspects of a
successful fighter design, and these were more important than outright
speed. Through tireless championing of the concepts, and good timing
with the "failure" of the initial F-X project, the "fighter mafia"
pressed for a lightweight day fighter that could be built and operated
in large numbers in order to ensure air superiority.[16] In early 1967,
they proposed that the ideal design had a thrust-to-weight ratio of near
1:1, a maximum speed further reduced to Mach 2.3, a weight of 40,000
pounds (18,000 kg) and a wing loading of 80 lb/ft².[17]

http://www.boeing.com/history/products/f-15-eagle.page

McDonnell Aircraft formalized the concept for the F-15 in 1967 when the
company was selected to enter the second phase of the U.S Air Force's FX
competition. Competing against Fairchild Hiller and North American
Rockwell, McDonnell used lessons learned during the Vietnam War on the
changing nature of jet age air-to-air combat, given that the F-4 Phantom
II was earning its reputation as a formidable fighter. On Dec. 23, 1969,
after more than two years of intensive testing and evaluation, the Air
Force awarded McDonnell Douglas the F-15 Advanced Tactical Fighter
contract. The McDonnell Douglas team had placed first among the three
competitors in all phases of the competition and had the lowest contract
price.

On June 26, 1972, James S. McDonnell, founder of McDonnell Aircraft,
christened the F-15 "Eagle." Test pilot Irv Burrows took the first F-15
Eagle to the air on July 27, 1972, at Edwards Air Force Base in
California. Six months later, the Air Force approved the Eagle for
full-rate production.

...snip ...

for a whole lot more, declassified F15 origins and development 1964-1972
http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120516-036.pdf

Boyd E/M discussion pgs.18-21 ... "By the spring of 1967, through the
efforts of Boyd and others, a 40,000-point F-X aircraft was "popped
out".

pg28, Point Design Studies, Meanwhile, the Air Force on 11 August 1967
had solicited bids from severn aerospace companies for second round of
studies.

pg37, F-15 Demonstration Milestones ... starting Dec1969

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160832

In article <W--dnTAaC8-3SnzLnZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>, 
jmelson@wustl.edu says...
> 
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> 
> > Neither of you appear to understand that Lynn was referring to the
> > original F-15 design as a "sluggish behemoth", not the F-14.
> DoD put out a request for the "F-X" and may have suggested it needed swing 
> wings, but McD proved that they were not actually NEEDED to fill all the 
> requirements, at least after several rounds of requests and proposals.
> 
> McDonnell-Douglas proposed a non-swing wing aircraft, and went on to build a 
> prototype.  I saw it fly in 1973 at Wallops Station, a guy flew over from 
> Pax River with it.  VERRRRY impressive handling and climb rate.
> 
> As far as I know, this became the F-15 with no large changes.  They did make 
> some modest changes to the control surface areas.

You're conflating F-X and TFX.  F-111 came out of the TFX program.  F-X 
was a different program for a lightweight fighter.

One of the requirements for TFX was that it be carrier-capable.  F-X was 
an Air Force program that had no such requirement.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160830

In article <U%eEy.29419$zz1.4290@fx44.iad>, scott@slp53.sl.home says...
> 
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> >In article <4qidnScPE9p74X3LnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, 
> >jmelson@wustl.edu says...
> >> 
> >> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> writes:
> >> >> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
> >> > 
> >> > The Outrageous Adolescence of the F-16; The Viper was small, fast, and
> >> > in your face
> >> > http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/outrageous-adolescence-
> >> f-16-180949491/?no-ist
> >> > 
> >> > 9yrs ago, John Boyd, January 23, 1927 - March 9, 1997, tribute in USNI
> >> > Procedings, for those w/o membership ... it is here at wayback machine
> >> > 
> >> http://web.archive.org/web/20011224132049/http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/cspinney/c199.txt
> >> > 
> >> > He used it to re-design the F-15, changing it from an 80,000-pound,
> >> > swing-wing, sluggish behemoth, to a 40,000-pound fixed-wing,
> >> > high-performance, maneuvering fighter.
> >> Uhh, the Navy's F-14 was swing wing, the F-15 is fixed.
> >
> >Note that that particular "sluggish behemoth" is so fearsome that one 
> >lighting off its radar will ground whole third-world air forces and when 
> >it was removed from service every single aircraft in the inventory was 
> >destroyed lest the one third-world air force that had a few of them get 
> >spare parts and thus do untold damage to the supposedly vastly superior 
> >lightweight fighters that can't force it to engage, can't run away from 
> >it, and can't shoot at it until long after it has killed them.
> >
> >Oh, and I've seen a classified demo of the sluggish behemoth making 
> >maximum-performance maneuvers.  I pity the fool . . .
> 
> Neither of you appear to understand that Lynn was referring to the
> original F-15 design as a "sluggish behemoth", not the F-14.

I understand that full well, however the F-14 was the sort of "sluggish 
behemoth" that the F-15 was supposed to avoid being.  Seems that the 
characterization was rather exaggerated, and even more so for the few F-
14s that got the engines for which it was designed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160761

Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> writes:
> Uhh, the Navy's F-14 was swing wing, the F-15 is fixed.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Profile-F-15A-D.html

The idea of an air-air fighter was under consideration as early as
1965, but the subsequent FX study generated by USAF Systems Command
created the concept of a 60,000 lb swing wing machine much like the
F-111, already under criticism for its inability to do what it wasn't
built for.

At this stage a Major John Boyd was appointed to rework the FX study and
generate a workable solution. Boyd was an outstanding air combat
tactician and the originator of the concept of energy
manoeuvrability. The concept revolves about the necessity for an
aircraft to maintain a maximum amount of kinetic/potential energy in a
dogfight, to be able to retain as much agility as possible.

http://www.flightsimbooks.com/jfs/page1.php

The FX program (Fighter eXperimental) was the result. The first FX
proposals were very heavy (60,000 pounds) and employed the
then-fashionable swing-wing design. This being too much like the
ill-fated F-111 design, the momentum swung in the other direction, until
in 1967 the conceived aircraft was down to 30,000 pounds.

boyd posts & URL
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subboyd.html

after redoing the original FX (swing-wing) design for what becomes F15
... he then starts on yf16/f16 (anticipating that the f15 forces would
come after him and try and have him thrown in Leavenworth for the rest
of his life, he leaves no trail of his supercomputer use involved in
yf16 design).

The yf16/f16 is non-stable & fly-by-wire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon#Negative_stability_and_fly-by-wire

The F-16 was the first production fighter aircraft intentionally
designed to be slightly aerodynamically unstable, also known as "relaxed
static stability" (RSS), to improve maneuverability.[66] Most aircraft
are designed with positive static stability, which induces aircraft to
return to straight and level flight attitude if the pilot releases the
controls; this reduces maneuverability as the inherent stability has to
be overcome. Aircraft with negative stability are designed to deviate
from controlled flight and thus be more maneuverable. At supersonic
speeds the F-16 gains stability (eventually positive) due to aerodynamic
changes

... 

Unlike the YF-17, which had hydromechanical controls serving as a backup
to the FBW, General Dynamics took the innovative step of eliminating
mechanical linkages between the control stick and rudder pedals, and the
flight control surfaces. The F-16 is entirely reliant on its electrical
systems to relay flight commands, instead of traditional
mechanically-linked controls, leading to the early moniker of "the
electric jet". The quadruplex design permits "graceful degradation" in
flight control response in that the loss of one channel renders the FLCS
a "triplex" system.[72] The FLCC began as an analog system on the A/B
variants, but has been supplanted by a digital computer system beginning
with the F-16C/D Block 40.[73][74] The F-16's controls suffered from a
sensitivity to static electricity or electrostatic discharge (ESD). Up
to 70-80% of the C/D models' electronics were vulnerable to ESD.[75]

... snip ...

ARTIFICIAL STABILITY & FLY-BY-WIRE CONTROL
http://www.ausairpower.net/AADR-FBW-CCV.html


--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160765

In article <87h9gfw4c1.fsf@garlic.com>, lynn@garlic.com says...
> 
> Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> writes:
> > Uhh, the Navy's F-14 was swing wing, the F-15 is fixed.
> 
> http://www.ausairpower.net/Profile-F-15A-D.html
> 
> The idea of an air-air fighter was under consideration as early as
> 1965, but the subsequent FX study generated by USAF Systems Command
> created the concept of a 60,000 lb swing wing machine much like the
> F-111, already under criticism for its inability to do what it wasn't
> built for.
> 
> At this stage a Major John Boyd was appointed to rework the FX study and
> generate a workable solution. Boyd was an outstanding air combat
> tactician and the originator of the concept of energy
> manoeuvrability. The concept revolves about the necessity for an
> aircraft to maintain a maximum amount of kinetic/potential energy in a
> dogfight, to be able to retain as much agility as possible.
> 
> http://www.flightsimbooks.com/jfs/page1.php
> 
> The FX program (Fighter eXperimental) was the result. The first FX
> proposals were very heavy (60,000 pounds) and employed the
> then-fashionable swing-wing design. This being too much like the
> ill-fated F-111 design, the momentum swung in the other direction, until
> in 1967 the conceived aircraft was down to 30,000 pounds.
> 
> boyd posts & URL
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subboyd.html
> 
> after redoing the original FX (swing-wing) design for what becomes F15
> ... he then starts on yf16/f16 (anticipating that the f15 forces would
> come after him and try and have him thrown in Leavenworth for the rest
> of his life, he leaves no trail of his supercomputer use involved in
> yf16 design).
> 
> The yf16/f16 is non-stable & fly-by-wire
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon#Negative_stability_and_fly-by-wire
> 
> The F-16 was the first production fighter aircraft intentionally
> designed to be slightly aerodynamically unstable, also known as "relaxed
> static stability" (RSS), to improve maneuverability.[66] Most aircraft
> are designed with positive static stability, which induces aircraft to
> return to straight and level flight attitude if the pilot releases the
> controls; this reduces maneuverability as the inherent stability has to
> be overcome. Aircraft with negative stability are designed to deviate
> from controlled flight and thus be more maneuverable. At supersonic
> speeds the F-16 gains stability (eventually positive) due to aerodynamic
> changes
> 
> ... 
> 
> Unlike the YF-17, which had hydromechanical controls serving as a backup
> to the FBW, General Dynamics took the innovative step of eliminating
> mechanical linkages between the control stick and rudder pedals, and the
> flight control surfaces. The F-16 is entirely reliant on its electrical
> systems to relay flight commands, instead of traditional
> mechanically-linked controls, leading to the early moniker of "the
> electric jet". The quadruplex design permits "graceful degradation" in
> flight control response in that the loss of one channel renders the FLCS
> a "triplex" system.[72] The FLCC began as an analog system on the A/B
> variants, but has been supplanted by a digital computer system beginning
> with the F-16C/D Block 40.[73][74] The F-16's controls suffered from a
> sensitivity to static electricity or electrostatic discharge (ESD). Up
> to 70-80% of the C/D models' electronics were vulnerable to ESD.[75]
> 
> ... snip ...
> 
> ARTIFICIAL STABILITY & FLY-BY-WIRE CONTROL
> http://www.ausairpower.net/AADR-FBW-CCV.html

The bottom line is that if there was an international aerobatic 
competition for jets, the F-16 would win hands down.  But how does it do 
in real combat against real enemies with aircraft that can force it to 
engage on unfavorable terms and disengage at will if the terms are not 
to their benefit?

It's slow, short ranged, and has limited payload.  Yes, if an enemy 
chooses to fight it on its terms, a skilled pilot will kill the Hell out 
of him, but an enemy would be a damned fool to fight it on its terms 
when he has a faster aircraft that can force combat and disengage at 
will.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160739

Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> writes:

> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?

Around 6 PM on the 22nd of October 2004. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web