We love Louis - no, really!
Gerald Pfeifer
I thought I'd better set the balance straight.
Louis, you are cool.
Your sarcasm has me rolling off my seat.
Your carefully crafted witticisms split my sides.
You've never annoyed me.
I admire your job at Lucasarts.
You don't waste download time with your newsgroup verbal
diarrhoea.
I respect your tact, restraint and maturity.
So does Jades.
We all love you man.
When the doctors let me out, perhaps I'll congratulate you personally.
You'll recognise me by the sedative syringe round my neck.
Thanks for giving me something to do on a cold, dark night.
Hugs and kisses,
Ged.
(I'll give 150:1 Louis can't resist a reply....
Let's see if I start the most popular chain in the group....)
To justify my presence :
Anyone got a list of all the ranks for both
military services? Anything cool happen when you get to the top?
But seriously - Louis, the newsgroup wouldn't be half as much
fun to trawl through without you in it!
Ciao
--
ENGLAND FOR THE CUP!
--
I hate signatures. Even when they're funny. Which this isn't.
Louis J.M
I was expecting a message this to pop up sooner or later.
> I thought I'd better set the balance straight.
You mean inverted.
> Louis, you are cool.
Yes, thank you. At 11,000 ft I certainly look so.
> Your sarcasm has me rolling off my seat.
Thanks. But I have to give credit to the Daily Show
for the best display of arrogant sarcasm.
> Your carefully crafted witticisms split my sides.
> You've never annoyed me.
> I admire your job at Lucasarts.
I don't work at Lucasarts. I used to work at Lucasfilm Ltd. I work at
NASA as a quantum Physicist, and I'm also a woman.
> You don't waste download time with your newsgroup verbal
> diarrhoea.
No, I don't. Having a lap-top around all the time has it's advantages
when your doing stuff and have 5 mintues to kill.
> I respect your tact, restraint and maturity.
Something you strive for but cannot quite hit.
> So does Jades.
> We all love you man.
Is this supposed to be a poem? No more like irnony. I think
it sums it up well.
> When the doctors let me out, perhaps I'll congratulate you personally.
> You'll recognise me by the sedative syringe round my neck.
<Louis get's suddenly very weak> I can't stand needles!
> Thanks for giving me something to do on a cold, dark night.
What, the Sheep? No, I really didn't mean you should really
do that. For god's sake you could get a disease. When Kelpie
was 5....
> Hugs and kisses,
> Ged.
Shut up, Rob.
> (I'll give 150:1 Louis can't resist a reply....
No, I was going to but what the hell. I guess that
scratches off restraint.
> Let's see if I start the most popular chain in the group....)
Depends. You must have a subject line that applies to or that
anyone can answer.
> To justify my presence :
> Anyone got a list of all the ranks for both
> military services? Anything cool happen when you get to the top?
>
> But seriously - Louis, the newsgroup wouldn't be half as much
> fun to trawl through without you in it!
IF I left forever or never said anything out of the way you would be very
bored indeed.
This sounds like a mix of Rob's and Raqoon's dialoge. Interesting.
Louis.
>
Kelpie
Wow!
Praise for Louis coming from people other then himself (well I think this
isnt Louis).
Im amazed.
Louis J.M
> Wow!
Look I wasn't encouraging wanking. Geez! Stop it.
> Praise for Louis coming from people other then himself (well I think this
> isnt Louis).
Nope, it isn't. Suffering from very bad burns from Saturday's ignoance left
me with a face as red as your ---- after going through a months cycle.
My whole face hurts right now, and I am not feeling my usual self lately.
If I seem more coherent please ignore it.
> Im amazed.
I know I provide a certain level of positivenes by being negative, but it
honestly is loads of fun. You people are so bloody serious all the time
that I could never function on this newsgroup any other way. I believe other
people see it that way also. Which more/less explains why no one has
killfiled me yet...
Oh shit. Was that coherent. Damn.
Louis.
Robert Pfeifer
On Mon, 04 May 1998 20:37:06 GMT, "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net>
wrote:
<snip>
}> Louis, you are cool.
}
}Yes, thank you. At 11,000 ft I certainly look so.
How do you get trousers that fit?
<snip>
}> You've never annoyed me.
}> I admire your job at Lucasarts.
}
}I don't work at Lucasarts. I used to work at Lucasfilm Ltd. I work at
}NASA as a quantum Physicist, and I'm also a woman.
He also powerlifts for the USA olympic team, is the power behind the
US president, and has a medical condition whereby each leg is longer
than the other.
}> You don't waste download time with your newsgroup verbal
}> diarrhoea.
}
}No, I don't. Having a lap-top around all the time has it's advantages
}when your doing stuff and have 5 mintues to kill.
Non-sequitur
<snip>
}> Hugs and kisses,
}> Ged.
}
}Shut up, Rob.
Wrong. Try again. I'm just the sysadmin.
<snip>
}IF I left forever or never said anything out of the way you would be very
}bored indeed.
Try us.
Rob
--
"Jesus was five feet and three and a half inches long."
Rob Pfeifer - mzyg142 @ unix.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~mzyg142/
Robert Pfeifer
On Tue, 5 May 1998 16:03:24 +1300, "Kelpie" <kel...@spam3wave.co.nz>
wrote:
}Wow!
}
}Praise for Louis coming from people other then himself (well I think this
}isnt Louis).
}
}Im amazed.
No, it's sarcasm.
Louis J.M
Robert Pfeifer <mzy...@unix.ccc.nottingham.ac.hiccup.uk> wrote in article <354f15c0.592750@news>...
> On Mon, 04 May 1998 20:37:06 GMT, "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> }> Louis, you are cool.
> }
> }Yes, thank you. At 11,000 ft I certainly look so.
>
> How do you get trousers that fit?
You mean pants.
You and your novella! I am not a giant!
> }> You've never annoyed me.
> }> I admire your job at Lucasarts.
> }
> }I don't work at Lucasarts. I used to work at Lucasfilm Ltd. I work at
> }NASA as a quantum Physicist, and I'm also a woman.
> He also powerlifts for the USA olympic team, is the power behind the
> US president, and has a medical condition whereby each leg is longer
> than the other.
That sexually disfunctional poon town draft Dodger! You have insulted me
for the last time! En' Garde!
> }> You don't waste download time with your newsgroup verbal
> }> diarrhoea.
> }
> }No, I don't. Having a lap-top around all the time has it's advantages
> }when your doing stuff and have 5 mintues to kill.
> Non-sequitur
Oh la la la.
> }Shut up, Rob.
>
> Wrong. Try again. I'm just the sysadmin.
No your not. A computer literate gay guy runs this newsgroup,
still believing it's purpose is to meet aspiring new models.
> }IF I left forever or never said anything out of the way you would be very
> }bored indeed.
>
> Try us.
No.
Louis.
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk
In article <354e1607...@news.demon.co.uk>#1/1,
ger...@randomword.demon.co.uk (Gerald Pfeifer) wrote:
<snip>
> To justify my presence :
Slight Red Dwarf moment there. "Justify your existence"...
> Anyone got a list of all the ranks for both
> military services? Anything cool happen when you get to the top?
Direct copy and paste from the FFE FAQ v2.1:-
The ranks are worked out on a points system, with each type of mission
being accorded a certain value. As you continue to do missions, your
points score will increase along with it. At certain scores the program
will decide to award you a promotion. The ranks are:
Federation Empire Points
None Outsider 0
Private Serf 1
Corporal Master 16
Sergeant Sir 81
Sgt-Major Squire 256
Major Lord 625
Colonel Baron 1,296
Lieutnant Viscount 2,401
Lt. Commander Count 4,096
Captain Earl 6,561
Commodore Marquis 10,000
Rear Admiral Duke 14,641
Admiral Prince 20,736
Points are awarded based on the following scale:-
delivery:2, assassination:14, photo:16, bombing:18, excellent photo:20
- Medals, and how to get them -
Every so often, the military may deem you worthy of a medal. The medal
you get depends on what you've done. Here's a list of the medals you
can win, and when they are awarded:-
Federation Empire When
Certificate of Valour Crimson Brassard First 'important' delivery
Starburst Black Polygon First secret delivery
Purple Omega Golden Spike First assassination
Vermillion Crest Platinum Cross First Photo mission
Blue Excelsior Legion of Honour First 'excellent' photo
Frontier Medal Celestial Warrior First bombing mission
An example of an 'important' item is gravatic detonators. Note that
your first photo mission shouldn't be 'excellent' otherwise you won't
get the 4th medal.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk
In article <01bd779b$bd9a8aa0$9c1d...@pompano.net.pompano.net>#1/1,
"Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net> wrote:
<snip>
> <Louis get's suddenly very weak> I can't stand needles!
<Jades grins evilly, and walks towards Louis brandishing an immense
hypodermic. In the backgroud, the Psycho music starts playing>
Kelpie
>> You've never annoyed me.
>> I admire your job at Lucasarts.
>
>I don't work at Lucasarts. I used to work at Lucasfilm Ltd. I work at
>NASA as a quantum Physicist, and I'm also a woman.
>
Yes and I am the half-human half-horse of scottish mythology known as the
Kelpie. I moved to New Zealand because of competition from the Loch Ness
monster and have been here the last 200 years. Oh and in my spare time I
travel to mars.
Louis J.M
> >> You've never annoyed me.
> >> I admire your job at Lucasarts.
> >
> >I don't work at Lucasarts. I used to work at Lucasfilm Ltd. I work at
> >NASA as a quantum Physicist, and I'm also a woman.
> >
>
>
> Yes and I am the half-human half-horse of scottish mythology known as the
> Kelpie.
Rob says you make love like no other 4 legged beast.
I moved to New Zealand because of competition from the Loch Ness
> monster and have been here the last 200 years. Oh and in my spare time I
> travel to mars.
Nice place. However you really want to stay away Mars High, the accomodations are
not anything like what you'll find on Earth space cities and the hotels are expensive and
the service is horrible.
Luckly they had a McDonalds on Level 15 at the Food Court, which the only thing good
about that was it's close proximity to the Hangar. Anyway I like to sleep on my ship and
feel more secure doing so.
That way I know I'm not being bugged by nosy Federation agents (not very eloquent) like
Raqoon.
Louis.
Kelpie
>Rob says you make love like no other 4 legged beast.
>
sorry to disapoint you but the Kelpie is bipedal (walks on two legs)
Louis J.M
> >Rob says you make love like no other 4 legged beast.
> >
> sorry to disapoint you but the Kelpie is bipedal (walks on two legs)
Sorry to disappoint you but you didn't get very high scores on your spelling grades
this month. So I'm taking your Thrustmaster FS away...
<Louis sneaks back to his house, loads up Jane's F-15 with anticipation and
plays through the night>
Louis.
Kelpie
>> >
>> sorry to disapoint you but the Kelpie is bipedal (walks on two legs)
>
>Sorry to disappoint you but you didn't get very high scores on your
spelling grades
>this month. So I'm taking your Thrustmaster FS away...
Me fail English, thats unpossible! (it is a wingman extreme actually)
><Louis sneaks back to his house, loads up Jane's F-15 with anticipation and
>plays through the night>
I prefer Janes ATF but that is just me.
James Johnson
Kelpie wrote in message <6itvsn$roo$1...@news.wave.co.nz>...
>
>>> >
>>> sorry to disapoint you but the Kelpie is bipedal (walks on two legs)
>>
>>Sorry to disappoint you but you didn't get very high scores on your
>spelling grades
>>this month. So I'm taking your Thrustmaster FS away...
>
>
>Me fail English, thats unpossible! (it is a wingman extreme actually)
I use the old 4-button Gravis (but I play ATF (and FFE) without it).
>><Louis sneaks back to his house, loads up Jane's F-15 with anticipation
and
>>plays through the night>
>
>I prefer Janes ATF but that is just me.
>
>
Also, Jane's ATF has two F-15 types, so I don't see why anyone would want to
buy it if you had ATF (but, of course, I love F-15's, so I would buy F-15
anyway).
LordHaHa
Louis J.M
> >Me fail English, thats unpossible! (it is a wingman extreme actually)
>
>
> I use the old 4-button Gravis (but I play ATF (and FFE) without it).
>
> >><Louis sneaks back to his house, loads up Jane's F-15 with anticipation
> and
> >>plays through the night>
> >
> >I prefer Janes ATF but that is just me.
Jane's ATF was stupid. There are so much better and realistic sims out there.
Especially now. But even then there were...
Actually, the one and only game that I think was even better than Frontier or
any other Elite game, was Microsoft Flight Simulator 5.0. That game was the
absolute work of a genius. Made in 1993, I haven't recalled a more enjoyable
gaming experiance. Never was a game so worth the money.
> Also, Jane's ATF has two F-15 types, so I don't see why anyone would want to
> buy it if you had ATF (but, of course, I love F-15's, so I would buy F-15
> anyway).
Yeah, that jet sure makes RAF fighters look inferior by comparison. No, In fact,
every fighter in the US arsenal makes the RAF fighters look inferior by comparison.
Louis.
Dylan Smith
Louis J.M wrote:
> Jane's ATF was stupid. There are so much better and realistic sims out there.
> Especially now. But even then there were...
Falcon 3.0 was my favorite military sim for a long time. However,
EF2000 v2.0 is superb, especially with 3dfx.
> Actually, the one and only game that I think was even better than Frontier or
> any other Elite game, was Microsoft Flight Simulator 5.0. That game was the
> absolute work of a genius. Made in 1993, I haven't recalled a more enjoyable
> gaming experiance. Never was a game so worth the money.
Have you tried FS98 yet? With a 3dfx card, it's very nice.
The aircraft are much more stable in pitch (although not quite
good enough on take-off) than in FS5.x. You can even set up
the aircraft in a nice stabilized approach by using the actual
manufacturer's numbers, and there are some nice add-on planes
(my favorites at the moment are the Hawker Hunter for a jet,
and the Beechcraft Baron for a piston twin. As for singles, the
MS supplied Cessnas are good, but there's a real nice Cessna 140
if you're not in a hurry you can get from Flightsim.com.)
However, FS98 cannot beat real flying... (Well, except in
price of course!)
ObElite: I think the tep people could look at the design outlook
of FS98. It's very extensible - it's easy to create new instrument
panels and customize the program just how you want it. If you
can make TEP like this, it'd be a winner, IMHO.
>
> > Also, Jane's ATF has two F-15 types, so I don't see why anyone would want to
> > buy it if you had ATF (but, of course, I love F-15's, so I would buy F-15
> > anyway).
>
> Yeah, that jet sure makes RAF fighters look inferior by comparison. No, In fact,
> every fighter in the US arsenal makes the RAF fighters look inferior by comparison.
Oh no.... Louis is trolling _again_!
(Just remember the statistics _you_ quoted about the RAF bettering
the F-15 in BVR, and getting 1:1 kill ratios in close combat with
the "inferior" Tornado before trolling ;-))
--
Email: dy...@vnet.IBM.COM
Dylan Smith 1810 Space Park Drive, Houston, TX 77573
Standard disclaimer applies.
Anti-spam - Change 'r' to raleigh, 'i' to ibm and 'c' to com.
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk
In article <35531...@news.cyberlynk.net>,
"James Johnson" <hu...@inetsurfer.net> wrote:
<snip>
> I use the old 4-button Gravis (but I play ATF (and FFE) without it).
I still love my Thrustmaster FCS2. However, my all-time favourite joystick is
Powerplay's Cruiser Turbo for the Amiga. Can't get them now :-(
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk
In article <01bd7a94$7d3c6360$Loca...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
"Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net> wrote:
[F15]
> Yeah, that jet sure makes RAF fighters look inferior by comparison. No, In
> fact, every fighter in the US arsenal makes the RAF fighters look inferior >
> by comparison.
Here we go again. Look, you just can't accept the fact that we have beaten you
twice in this argument already. There is only one fighter in the world that is
arguably better than EF2000 in some roles, and that is the F22. Which costs
twice as much, and isn't as good at ATG or as flexible as Eurofighter is. I
say again - Eurofighter gives the most bang for your buck.
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk
In article <35533A...@raleigh.ibm.com>,
dy...@r.i.c wrote:
>
> Louis J.M wrote:
> > Jane's ATF was stupid. There are so much better and realistic sims out
there.
> > Especially now. But even then there were...
>
> Falcon 3.0 was my favorite military sim for a long time. However,
> EF2000 v2.0 is superb, especially with 3dfx.
This is Super EF2000? I'm still trying to figure out how to enable 3DFX
support (although I haven't run it since I installed the card). Any advice?
First time my Dad saw SEF2000 his jaw dropped. Before that, he'd been playing
Mig29-M, Interdictor and Birds of War...
Louis J.M
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk wrote in article <6j0crv$im7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <01bd7a94$7d3c6360$Loca...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
> "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> [F15]
>
> > Yeah, that jet sure makes RAF fighters look inferior by comparison. No, In
> > fact, every fighter in the US arsenal makes the RAF fighters look inferior >
> > by comparison.
>
> Here we go again. Look, you just can't accept the fact that we have beaten you
> twice in this argument already.
Look. No matter what you say I still stand corrected that US Military Aircraft ARE
without question the best out there. The Eurofighter is no more manuverable, fast
or advanced than our F-16's, and certainly not more competent in the air as an
F-15.
In fact, there is nothing the RAF has that even comes close to an F-15
in terms of sheer deadliness.
Last Saturday I saw first hand at the Shell Air and Sea Show a British AV8-B Harrier
doing all sorts of manuvers about 500 feet away from me at the beach.
Along with that, I saw complete demonstrations by the F-16 F-15, F-22, B-2 Stealth
Bomber, F-117A, FA-18, B-1B Lancer, and, of course, the Blue Angels.
All this took 7 hours to watch. And I learned quite a bit about each planes' flying
characteristics as each one went through it's paces. The F-16 and F-22 were the
most dazzling. The F-16 was so small and manuverable it was very hard to keep
sight of. It passed the beach and made a deafining roar, then pulled up into a 9'
G' climb into the noon sun, and in about 2 seconds after it went vertical there was
a dead silence. Nothing. 5 seconds later you saw the jet fly by at 600 knots followed
by a sound wave.
The F-22 was even worse! It was blindingly fast, and extremely hard to spot after
it went by. The manuverability was more than the F-16's from what I could see.
The pilot probably couldn't handle to push it to the limit.
>There is only one fighter in the world that is
> arguably better than EF2000 in some roles, and that is the F22. Which costs
> twice as much, and isn't as good at ATG or as flexible as Eurofighter is. I
> say again - Eurofighter gives the most bang for your buck.
Indeed it does, after it's hit by a missile.
Louis.
mcai...@stud.umist.ac.uk
In article <6j0crv$im7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk wrote:
>
> In article <01bd7a94$7d3c6360$Loca...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
> "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> [F15]
>
> > Yeah, that jet sure makes RAF fighters look inferior by comparison. No, In
> > fact, every fighter in the US arsenal makes the RAF fighters look inferior
>
> > by comparison.
>
> Here we go again. Look, you just can't accept the fact that we have beaten
you
is
> arguably better than EF2000 in some roles, and that is the F22. Which costs
> twice as much, and isn't as good at ATG or as flexible as Eurofighter is. I
> say again - Eurofighter gives the most bang for your buck.
This newsgroup would be a lot better if people would stop replying to blatent
trolls by Louis, you are playing right into his hands by entering into is
futile and badly written arguments. Let him wallow in self delusion, you saw
what happened last time this argument came up?
Louis J.M
mcai...@stud.umist.ac.uk wrote in article <6j1q5q$1p7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <6j0crv$im7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > > Yeah, that jet sure makes RAF fighters look inferior by comparison. No, In
> > > fact, every fighter in the US arsenal makes the RAF fighters look inferior
> >
> > > by comparison.
> >
> > Here we go again. Look, you just can't accept the fact that we have beaten
> you
> > twice in this argument already. There is only one fighter in the world that
> is
> > arguably better than EF2000 in some roles, and that is the F22. Which costs
> > twice as much, and isn't as good at ATG or as flexible as Eurofighter is. I
> > say again - Eurofighter gives the most bang for your buck.
>
> This newsgroup would be a lot better if people would stop replying to blatent
> trolls by Louis, you are playing right into his hands by entering into is
> futile and badly written arguments. Let him wallow in self delusion, you saw
> what happened last time this argument came up?
Yep, people game up with1 GOOD written arguments to defend their obvious
inferiority.
Louis.
parhum
In article <6j0d27$it7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk wrote:
> First time my Dad saw SEF2000 his jaw dropped. Before that, he'd been
> playing
> Mig29-M, Interdictor and Birds of War...
and whats wrong with them then?
<fades into distance muttering darkly>
anyway, chocks away was the best flight game ever.
parhum, buying a peecee sos he can play frontier.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | /
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ co...@argonet.co.uk
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk
In article <01bd7af1$d99e9e40$291d...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
"Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
> graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk wrote in article
<6j0crv$im7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Look. No matter what you say I still stand corrected that US Military
> Aircraft ARE without question the best out there.
About 12 people on this group say that you're wrong. Therefore, it isn't
"without question."
> The Eurofighter is no more manuverable, fast or advanced than our F-16's,
> and certainly not more competent in the air as an F-15.
And your proof is...? Remember that EF2K is still in prototype. In case you
didn't know, the current prototype is powered by a reconditioned Tornado
powerplant, not the final production engine.
> In fact, there is nothing the RAF has that even comes close to an F-15
> in terms of sheer deadliness.
Nonsense.
> Along with that, I saw complete demonstrations by the F-16
Ageing, due for a substantial refit.
> F-15
Obsolete.
> F-22
Twice as expensive as EF2K and not even close to twice as effective.
> B-2 Stealth Bomber
Bomber, with no Anti-Air defence. An Iraqi conscript in a clapped-out Mig-21
could drop it without breaking sweat. Oh, and you can see it on radar when it
rains.
> F-117A
Sluggish handling, can be seen fairly easy when it's raining. Minimal weapons
load.
> FA-18
Fairly nice, but still not in the same class as EF2K.
> B-1B Lancer
Obsolete. Can be fairly easily blown away by an average pilot in an
export-version Foxbat. No stealth capacity either.
> and, of course, the Blue Angels.
The cheap US imitation of the Red Arrows.
> All this took 7 hours to watch. And I learned quite a bit about each planes'
> flying characteristics as each one went through it's paces.
Display flying is totally different to combat flying.
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk
In article <na.c40301484...@argonet.co.uk>,
parhum <co...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <6j0d27$it7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk wrote:
> > First time my Dad saw SEF2000 his jaw dropped. Before that, he'd been
> > playing
> > Mig29-M, Interdictor and Birds of War...
>
> and whats wrong with them then?
Nothing. But if you compare the graphics with EF2000 you'll see what I mean...
Louis J.M
> > Look. No matter what you say I still stand corrected that US Military
> > Aircraft ARE without question the best out there.
>
> About 12 people on this group say that you're wrong. Therefore, it isn't
> "without question."
The question is who_are_they. Pilots? Military Aviation Officers??? No.
There is no question, and 12 people who don't have the slightest idea
of what their getting at don't necessarily mean it's "without question".
> > The Eurofighter is no more manuverable, fast or advanced than our F-16's,
> > and certainly not more competent in the air as an F-15.
> And your proof is...? Remember that EF2K is still in prototype. In case you
> didn't know, the current prototype is powered by a reconditioned Tornado
> powerplant, not the final production engine.
Just by looking at it's size, wing span and engine:
Size: It's smaller than the F-16.
Wing Span: The wings are have a Delta configuration which aren't suited for high speed,
but rather for low altitude performance.
> > In fact, there is nothing the RAF has that even comes close to an F-15
> > in terms of sheer deadliness.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> > Along with that, I saw complete demonstrations by the F-16
>
> Ageing, due for a substantial refit.
Doubt it. There was little that could out-turn it. It has a lot of power, it cheap
to make (Only $11,000,000!), and it also was very hard-to spot and carries a
very high payload despite it's size.
> > F-15
>
> Obsolete.
Yeah. Your going to have to really prove this. The F-15 is probably the
best air-to-air fighter in the world. The EF-2K never_could outdo it, neither
in payload or maneuverability or power. Please!
> > F-22
>
> Twice as expensive as EF2K and not even close to twice as effective.
The F-22 has has_us_scared. The thing can leave the atmosphere (over
100,000 ft) is more manuverable than the F-16/F-15 which it was designed
to replace ,and carries the very latest avionics and radar.
Trust me, no low-level fighter is going to be able to blink if this thing is in
the air while it's scooting around.
> > B-2 Stealth Bomber
>
> Bomber, with no Anti-Air defence. An Iraqi conscript in a clapped-out Mig-21
> could drop it without breaking sweat. Oh, and you can see it on radar when it
> rains.
Your starting to get like me here Graham ; ) Shooting answers in the dark while you
have no idea what your talking about. The B-2 is the most advanced aircraft in the
world, you don't think it would be very_hard to get a lock on it's heat trail, especially
if it was raining? The B-2's engine heat if almost nonexistant.
> > F-117A
> Sluggish handling, can be seen fairly easy when it's raining. Minimal weapons
> load.
Still hard to track, aquire and fire on. Minimal weapons load but it can carry much
larger weapons (including nuclear), with probably more precision than any other plane
ever built.
> > FA-18
>
> Fairly nice, but still not in the same class as EF2K.
Engine it's very powerful, but no more powerful than the EF2K's.
The EF2K might out-run it, but it's high payload make it an excellent
strike fighter. It really isn't intended solely for the air-to-air role.
> > B-1B Lancer
>
> Obsolete. Can be fairly easily blown away by an average pilot in an
> export-version Foxbat. No stealth capacity either.
>
> > and, of course, the Blue Angels.
>
> The cheap US imitation of the Red Arrows.
Ha! You are so full of it. I've never seen the Red Arrows so
I can't say they aren't good, but the Blue Angels are one excellent
team! If you say only half of what they do, you wouldn't be
saying that.
> > All this took 7 hours to watch. And I learned quite a bit about each planes'
> > flying characteristics as each one went through it's paces.
>
> Display flying is totally different to combat flying.
Not if it's demonstrating maneuverability, speed and turning radius. Hmm??
Oh by the way, your AV8-B was the lamest ; )
Wanker! Wanker! Wanker!
Louis.
Louis J.M
> >
> > In article <6j0d27$it7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk wrote:
> > > First time my Dad saw SEF2000 his jaw dropped.
"What the hell is that thing?? Dont' tell me they designed another
strike fighter! If those Americans come over here were not going to
have anything to protect us!" <Graham's dad shudders at the thought>
Before that, he'd been
> > > playing
> > > Mig29-M, Interdictor and Birds of War...
Your talking about a game? I have SU-27 Flanker, and it's most
realistic simulation ever made for the Computer. Oh by the way
I'm good at it ; )
Louis.
James Johnson
Louis J.M wrote in message
<01bd7cd3$5bf0e6e0$4728...@pompano.net.pompano.net>...
Being more realistic doesn't mean it's more fun. I found Su-27 to be a bore
(except when those SAM sites fired at you without locking on to you first).
If you want a good, fun Russian jet fighter/bomber game, you should get that
Su-25 game that came out a few years ago. Crap gfx and sound, but it was
fun, and it had a great variety of mission (in one, you had to save the
Russian president). They should make an update of that game, as it yould be
a breath of fresh air from the
EF2K/F22/Longbow/Comanchee(spelling?)/M1A2,M1A1/etc, etc.....
>Louis.
LordHaHa
James Johnson
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk wrote in message
<6j6lee$51l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <01bd7af1$d99e9e40$291d...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
> "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk wrote in article
><6j0crv$im7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>> Look. No matter what you say I still stand corrected that US Military
>> Aircraft ARE without question the best out there.
>
>About 12 people on this group say that you're wrong. Therefore, it isn't
>"without question."
Actually, RAF and the USAF are on par.
>> The Eurofighter is no more manuverable, fast or advanced than our
F-16's,
>> and certainly not more competent in the air as an F-15.
>
>And your proof is...? Remember that EF2K is still in prototype. In case you
>didn't know, the current prototype is powered by a reconditioned Tornado
>powerplant, not the final production engine.
And I, too, don't think the EF2K is a big screaming deal, even if it had
it's final engine.
>> In fact, there is nothing the RAF has that even comes close to an F-15
>> in terms of sheer deadliness.
>
>Nonsense.
Because I worship the F-15, I have no choice but to side with Louis.
>> Along with that, I saw complete demonstrations by the F-16
>
>Ageing, due for a substantial refit.
Hear Hear. Never liked that $*@#ing jet.
>> F-15
>
>Obsolete.
YOU EVIL MAN!!! THE F-15 CAN KILL ANY CRAFT WITHOUT BREAKING A SWEAT! EVIL!
EVIL! ;)
>> F-22
>
>Twice as expensive as EF2K and not even close to twice as effective.
Please don't say "F-22" anymore.
>> B-2 Stealth Bomber
>
>Bomber, with no Anti-Air defence. An Iraqi conscript in a clapped-out
Mig-21
>could drop it without breaking sweat. Oh, and you can see it on radar when
it
>rains.
>
>> F-117A
>
>Sluggish handling, can be seen fairly easy when it's raining. Minimal
weapons
>load.
Not like it ever rains in Iraq. ;)
>> FA-18
>
>Fairly nice, but still not in the same class as EF2K.
Graham, your starting to drool when you say "EF2K".
>> B-1B Lancer
>
>Obsolete. Can be fairly easily blown away by an average pilot in an
>export-version Foxbat. No stealth capacity either.
Never heard of the plane.
>> and, of course, the Blue Angels.
>
>The cheap US imitation of the Red Arrows.
Who cares about the Bule Angels and the Red Arrows!?
>> All this took 7 hours to watch. And I learned quite a bit about each
planes'
>> flying characteristics as each one went through it's paces.
>
>Display flying is totally different to combat flying.
Again, Hear Hear.
LordHaHa
mcai...@stud.umist.ac.uk
In article <01bd7cd2$ad620320$4728...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
"Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > Look. No matter what you say I still stand corrected that US Military
> > > Aircraft ARE without question the best out there.
> >
> > About 12 people on this group say that you're wrong. Therefore, it isn't
> > "without question."
>
> There is no question, and 12 people who don't have the slightest idea
> of what their getting at don't necessarily mean it's "without question".
>
the RAF and they will reply that they are on a par, the USAF has a *slight*
edge in numbers though ;)
> > > The Eurofighter is no more manuverable, fast or advanced than our
F-16's,
> > > and certainly not more competent in the air as an F-15.
>
> > And your proof is...? Remember that EF2K is still in prototype. In case
you
> > didn't know, the current prototype is powered by a reconditioned Tornado
> > powerplant, not the final production engine.
>
> Just by looking at it's size, wing span and engine:
>
> Size: It's smaller than the F-16.
>
> Wing Span: The wings are have a Delta configuration which aren't suited for
high speed,
> but rather for low altitude performance.
That proves nothing, the Delta config is superbly suited to high speed
performance at all altitudes and it is probably the third most manoeverable
aircraft in the world (behind the F22 and the fantastic SU-37). It also has
very advanced avionics and radar, again way better than anything bar the F22.
>
> > > In fact, there is nothing the RAF has that even comes close to an F-15
> > > in terms of sheer deadliness.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > > Along with that, I saw complete demonstrations by the F-16
> >
> > Ageing, due for a substantial refit.
>
> Doubt it. There was little that could out-turn it. It has a lot of power, it
cheap
> to make (Only $11,000,000!), and it also was very hard-to spot and carries a
> very high payload despite it's size.
Great fighter but it is too old to compete nowadays, more and more emphasis is
being placed on the technology used in fighters rather than manoeverablilty.
Still, I have seen it at many air displays and it is a good plane.
>
> > > F-15
> >
> > Obsolete.
>
> Yeah. Your going to have to really prove this. The F-15 is probably the
> best air-to-air fighter in the world. The EF-2K never_could outdo it,
neither
> in payload or maneuverability or power. Please!
In terms of manoeverability it is nothing special, no way a plane that size
could outmanoever a modern small fighter no matter how good it was. The
payload and power are good though but it doesn't have the avionics needed to
carry some of the most advanced air-air or air-ground weaponry available.
>
> > > F-22
> >
> > Twice as expensive as EF2K and not even close to twice as effective.
>
> The F-22 has has_us_scared. The thing can leave the atmosphere (over
> 100,000 ft) is more manuverable than the F-16/F-15 which it was designed
> to replace ,and carries the very latest avionics and radar.
>
> Trust me, no low-level fighter is going to be able to blink if this thing is
in
> the air while it's scooting around.
Low level has many advantages that high level doesn't. at 150 feet (incidently
the RAF are the world leaders at low level flight, even your pilots
acknowledge that) you are almost completely invisible to radar and below the
minimum height of most SAM missile sites. At 100k feet you can be intercepted
by the Mig-25 and other similar planes and also be hit with modern SAMs.
>
> > > B-2 Stealth Bomber
> >
> > Bomber, with no Anti-Air defence. An Iraqi conscript in a clapped-out
Mig-21
> > could drop it without breaking sweat. Oh, and you can see it on radar when
it
> > rains.
>
> Your starting to get like me here Graham ; ) Shooting answers in the dark
while you
> have no idea what your talking about. The B-2 is the most advanced aircraft
in the
> world, you don't think it would be very_hard to get a lock on it's heat
trail, especially
> if it was raining? The B-2's engine heat if almost nonexistant.
Unfortunately it also costshalf as much as a Nimitz class aircraft carrier,
not the most practical plane around.
> > > F-117A
>
> > Sluggish handling, can be seen fairly easy when it's raining. Minimal
weapons
> > load.
>
> Still hard to track, aquire and fire on. Minimal weapons load but it can
carry much
> larger weapons (including nuclear), with probably more precision than any
other plane
> ever built.
Again too expansive but very useful at anti-radar strikes (as in the Gulf
War).
>
> > > FA-18
> >
> > Fairly nice, but still not in the same class as EF2K.
>
> Engine it's very powerful, but no more powerful than the EF2K's.
> The EF2K might out-run it, but it's high payload make it an excellent
> strike fighter. It really isn't intended solely for the air-to-air role.
And nice and versatile for carrier useag, my favorite US plane.
>
> > > B-1B Lancer
> >
> > Obsolete. Can be fairly easily blown away by an average pilot in an
> > export-version Foxbat. No stealth capacity either.
Some stealth capability, and good for wiping out 3rd world nations (can carry
more than a B52).
> >
> > > and, of course, the Blue Angels.
> >
> > The cheap US imitation of the Red Arrows.
>
> Ha! You are so full of it. I've never seen the Red Arrows so
> I can't say they aren't good, but the Blue Angels are one excellent
> team! If you say only half of what they do, you wouldn't be
> saying that.
I have seen the Red Arrows, the Frecci Tricolore (Italian), the French team
(can't remember the name) and the Blue Angels. Althought the Blue Angels do
some nice one on one aerobatics the Red Arrows' formation stunts are (IMHO)
the best in the world. Pity the Sharks Helicopter Display team disbanded, they
once took the Red Arrows up with them in the co-pilots seats and scared the
pants off them (my Dad was a pilot in the Sharks way back).
>
> > > All this took 7 hours to watch. And I learned quite a bit about each
planes'
> > > flying characteristics as each one went through it's paces.
> >
> > Display flying is totally different to combat flying.
>
> Not if it's demonstrating maneuverability, speed and turning radius. Hmm??
> Oh by the way, your AV8-B was the lamest ; )
No, your crap imatation of our Harrier was the lamest. Watch a *real* harrier
go through its paces (going ballistic from a hovering start for example) with
a *real* pilot and you will be amazed)
>
> Wanker! Wanker! Wanker!
Stop talking to yourself Louis, no-one is listening.
>
> Louise.
Glenn Andrews
In article <01bd7af1$d99e9e40$291d...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
Kint...@Mediaone.net says...
> Look. No matter what you say I still stand corrected that US Military Aircraft ARE
> without question the best out there. The Eurofighter is no more manuverable, fast
> or advanced than our F-16's, and certainly not more competent in the air as an
> F-15.
>
Naah, it's got to be the BAe Nimrod ASW. Comet 4 with Sidewinders! Name
me another fighter that can act as it's own AWACS.
Regards,
Glenn.
gand...@nospam.demon.co.uk http://www.vetitice.demon.co.uk/home.html
Hint: my email domain is the same as my web domain. Come and visit!
--
"Existem Seule si Servillo"
Glenn Andrews, Dangerous and on the edge of a Vipers sting.
Louis J.M
> Naah, it's got to be the BAe Nimrod ASW. Comet 4 with Sidewinders! Name
> me another fighter that can act as it's own AWACS.
That wasn't the subject. And I really don't care.
PS: Damn your name sounds like a womans'.
Louis.
Louis J.M
<Louis Is Now Running With EMS Enabled...>
You go ask 12 Pilots/Aviation Officers whether the US Air Force is better than
the RAF and they will reply that they are on a par, the USAF has a *slight*
edge in numbers though ;)
Actually, I have, over AOL. And I've met one in person.
I also was in the bookstore reading about your EF2000 and other second
generation aircraft (first generation but since the F-22 came out..).
> > Wing Span: The wings are have a Delta configuration which aren't suited for
> high speed,
> > but rather for low altitude performance.
> That proves nothing, the Delta config is superbly suited to high speed
> performance at all altitudes and it is probably the third most manoeverable
> aircraft in the world (behind the F22 and the fantastic SU-37). It also has
> very advanced avionics and radar, again way better than anything bar the F22.
Yes it does, a Delta configuration genreates more drag, but has more stability
at lower speeds. The F-22 and F-16 have angled wings that are designed for
medium to high speeds, which a combat aircraft is suited to.
> > > > In fact, there is nothing the RAF has that even comes close to an F-15
> > > > in terms of sheer deadliness.
> > >
> > > Nonsense.
> > >
> > > > Along with that, I saw complete demonstrations by the F-16
> > > Ageing, due for a substantial refit.
> > > > F-15
> > >
> > > Obsolete.
> >
> > Yeah. Your going to have to really prove this. The F-15 is probably the
> > best air-to-air fighter in the world. The EF-2K never_could outdo it,
> neither
> > in payload or maneuverability or power. Please!
> In terms of manoeverability it is nothing special, no way a plane that size
> could outmanoever a modern small fighter no matter how good it was. The
> payload and power are good though but it doesn't have the avionics needed to
> carry some of the most advanced air-air or air-ground weaponry available.
The F-15 was nearly as maneuverable as the F-16, it also climbed from a 90
degree angle to 60,000 ft from nearly zero speed vertically.
> > The F-22 has has_us_scared. The thing can leave the atmosphere (over
> > 100,000 ft) is more manuverable than the F-16/F-15 which it was designed
> > to replace ,and carries the very latest avionics and radar.
> >
> > Trust me, no low-level fighter is going to be able to blink if this thing is
> in
> > the air while it's scooting around.
> Low level has many advantages that high level doesn't. at 150 feet (incidently
> the RAF are the world leaders at low level flight, even your pilots
> acknowledge that) you are almost completely invisible to radar and below the
> minimum height of most SAM missile sites. At 100k feet you can be intercepted
> by the Mig-25 and other similar planes and also be hit with modern SAMs.
True, but since the F-22's engine is specially designed to elimintate 55% of it's
exaust signature that really isn't a high probability threat at 50,000 ft unless it's
going up against five powerful integrated tracking systems on the ground.
> > > > B-2 Stealth Bomber
> > Your starting to get like me here Graham ; ) Shooting answers in the dark
> while you
> > have no idea what your talking about. The B-2 is the most advanced aircraft
> in the
> > world, you don't think it would be very_hard to get a lock on it's heat
> trail, especially
> Unfortunately it also costshalf as much as a Nimitz class aircraft carrier,
> not the most practical plane around.
Yeah, but we have them. For some reason...
> Still hard to track, aquire and fire on. Minimal weapons load but it can
> carry much
> > larger weapons (including nuclear), with probably more precision than any
> other plane
> > ever built.
> Again too expansive but very useful at anti-radar strikes (as in the Gulf
> War).
> > > Fairly nice, but still not in the same class as EF2K.
Based on performance comparisons yes. But remember an entire squadron
of F117A's went into Bagdad, radar and Sam's everywhere and
hit heavily guarded command centers. No planes were lost.
That is why it's worth the cost. It's genuine quality is Stealth and by
this example it lives up to it's name.
> > Engine it's very powerful, but no more powerful than the EF2K's.
> > The EF2K might out-run it, but it's high payload make it an excellent
> > strike fighter. It really isn't intended solely for the air-to-air role.
>
>And nice and versatile for carrier useag, my favorite US plane.
> > > The cheap US imitation of the Red Arrows.
> >
> > Ha! You are so full of it. I've never seen the Red Arrows so
> > I can't say they aren't good, but the Blue Angels are one excellent
> > team! If you say only half of what they do, you wouldn't be
> > saying that.
> I have seen the Red Arrows, the Frecci Tricolore (Italian), the French team
> (can't remember the name) and the Blue Angels. Althought the Blue Angels do
> some nice one on one aerobatics the Red Arrows' formation stunts are (IMHO)
> the best in the world. Pity the Sharks Helicopter Display team disbanded, they
> once took the Red Arrows up with them in the co-pilots seats and scared the
> pants off them (my Dad was a pilot in the Sharks way back).
I don't really know anything about this, so I'll just close this by saying that
what I saw was impressive.
> > > > All this took 7 hours to watch. And I learned quite a bit about each
> planes'
> > > > flying characteristics as each one went through it's paces.
> > >
> > > Display flying is totally different to combat flying.
> >
> > Not if it's demonstrating maneuverability, speed and turning radius. Hmm??
> > Oh by the way, your AV8-B was the lamest ; )
> No, your crap imatation of our Harrier was the lamest. Watch a *real* harrier
> go through its paces (going ballistic from a hovering start for example) with
> a *real* pilot and you will be amazed)
I did. IT was hovering ove the ocean, about 10 feet off the ground it took off fast
and flew normally. It's Rolse Royce engine was very noisy, sounded like a big
vacuum cleaner.
Zzzzzzzzzzz....
> > Wanker! Wanker! Wanker!
> Stop talking to yourself Louis, no-one is listening.
That you have wrong!
> > Louise.
Stop calling me Louise! I can't stand that name!
YOUR the one who has a women's name! : D
Louis.
s.cha...@cranfield.ac.uk
> > playing
> > Mig29-M, Interdictor and Birds of War...
>
Nothing for the time, perhaps. They definitely look a bit dull and dated
today, though (well, Interdictor and Mig29-M. I haven't played BoW).
> <fades into distance muttering darkly>
>
> anyway, chocks away was the best flight game ever.
In two player mode, at any rate.
> parhum, buying a peecee sos he can play frontier.
Traitor!
Simon Challands
mcai...@stud.umist.ac.uk
In article <01bd7d44$41bb8b60$b11e...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
"Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
> <Louis Is Now Running With EMS Enabled...>
>
> You go ask 12 Pilots/Aviation Officers whether the US Air Force is better
than
> the RAF and they will reply that they are on a par, the USAF has a *slight*
> edge in numbers though ;)
>
> Actually, I have, over AOL. And I've met one in person.
Glenn Andrews
In article <01bd7d41$cce5cb40$b11e...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
Kint...@Mediaone.net says...
>
> > Naah, it's got to be the BAe Nimrod ASW. Comet 4 with Sidewinders! Name
> > me another fighter that can act as it's own AWACS.
>
> That wasn't the subject. And I really don't care.
But surely a fighter with a 12-hour combat endurance with a ten-ton
weapon load that can probably act as a JTIDS hub for mission integration
must be better than some piece of expensive tinfoil that can carry a
couple of hours of AVTURB and only notices SAM sites after they've popped
one of at you. Nimrods can hear the dirty jokes the gun crew are telling
about the CO, let alone the missile lock.
I do enjoy these little discussions. Well, monologues.
Louis J.M
Glenn Andrews <gand...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in article <MPG.fc2a6c1d...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01bd7d41$cce5cb40$b11e...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
> Kint...@Mediaone.net says...
> >
> > > Naah, it's got to be the BAe Nimrod ASW. Comet 4 with Sidewinders! Name
> > > me another fighter that can act as it's own AWACS.
> >
> > That wasn't the subject. And I really don't care.
>
> But surely a fighter with a 12-hour combat endurance with a ten-ton
> weapon load that can probably act as a JTIDS hub for mission integration
> must be better than some piece of expensive tinfoil that can carry a
> couple of hours of AVTURB and only notices SAM sites after they've popped
> one of at you. Nimrods can hear the dirty jokes the gun crew are telling
> about the CO, let alone the missile lock.
<Louis flips open a switch, "click", marked with black and yellow
vertical stripes, which unveils a little red stud. Louis hits the button
and the window closes>
Louis.
Robert Pfeifer
On Mon, 11 May 1998 11:53:05 GMT, "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net>
wrote:
}> > B-2 Stealth Bomber
}>
}> Bomber, with no Anti-Air defence. An Iraqi conscript in a clapped-out Mig-21
}> could drop it without breaking sweat. Oh, and you can see it on radar when it
}> rains.
}
}Your starting to get like me here Graham ; ) Shooting answers in the dark while you
}have no idea what your talking about. The B-2 is the most advanced aircraft in the
}world, you don't think it would be very_hard to get a lock on it's heat trail, especially
}if it was raining? The B-2's engine heat if almost nonexistant.
Think radar-guided missiles, Louis.
}> > F-117A
}
}> Sluggish handling, can be seen fairly easy when it's raining. Minimal weapons
}> load.
}
}Still hard to track, aquire and fire on. Minimal weapons load but it can carry much
}larger weapons (including nuclear), with probably more precision than any other plane
}ever built.
Remember the famous quote from the gulf?
Brit: "We have something unidentified on the radar."
Merkin: "Oh, sorry, that's one of our stealth fighters."
Rob
--
"File 'C++' is a directory" - Pico
Robert Pfeifer - mzy...@unix.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~mzyg142/
Louis J.M
> }> > B-2 Stealth Bomber
> }>
> }> Bomber, with no Anti-Air defence. An Iraqi conscript in a clapped-out Mig-21
> }> could drop it without breaking sweat. Oh, and you can see it on radar when it
> }> rains.
> }
> }Your starting to get like me here Graham ; ) Shooting answers in the dark while you
> }have no idea what your talking about. The B-2 is the most advanced aircraft in the
> }world, you don't think it would be very_hard to get a lock on it's heat trail, especially
> }if it was raining? The B-2's engine heat if almost nonexistant.
>
> Think radar-guided missiles, Louis.
Think very little signal feedback, Rob.
Think the 5 inch seeker on a missile head that attempts to chase
a target with 10% lead on the signiture if the ground station get's
a lock. If_that happens. Which if the B2 if at 25,000 or 30,000 ft
is impossible.
> }Still hard to track, aquire and fire on. Minimal weapons load but it can carry much
> }larger weapons (including nuclear), with probably more precision than any other plane
> }ever built.
>
> Remember the famous quote from the gulf?
> Brit: "We have something unidentified on the radar."
> Merkin: "Oh, sorry, that's one of our stealth fighters."
The F-117A and B-2 aren't_completely invisible to radar.
But only at a pinch. If the F-117A or B-2 are at 500 ft and
fly over a radar dish, there is going to be a radar signal,
because even though it's radar absorbing skin is effective
against radar signals, it still is an object.
Radar signals won't pass though the planes, just not
bounce back a lot. To maximize safety, both planes
still go around SAM and radar like other aircraft.
Louis.
Paul Taylor
>> }have no idea what your talking about. The B-2 is the most advanced
aircraft in the
>> }world, you don't think it would be very_hard to get a lock on it's heat
trail, especially
>> }if it was raining? The B-2's engine heat if almost nonexistant.
>>
>>
Funnily enough.. a bit of trivia here.. Last year the US did a flyover at an
airshow in the UK with a B2, and yes.. The RAF tracked it in and then
tracked it back out again.. evidently the fact that they made it puvlic
annoyed the USAF quite a bit.
Paul Taylor
Robert Pfeifer
On Tue, 12 May 1998 10:48:15 GMT, s.cha...@cranfield.ac.uk wrote:
}In article <na.c40301484...@argonet.co.uk>,
} parhum <co...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
}>
}> parhum, buying a peecee sos he can play frontier.
}
}Traitor!
If you ask me, it isn't worth it unless you've got plenty of other
reasons.
Or a dirt cheap offer.
Rob
--
"The pilchards in this ration pack are suspect and should be buried
at a depth of not less than three feet."
Lewis Jardine
On Sat, 09 May 1998 01:42:46 GMT, graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk wrote:
>In article <35531...@news.cyberlynk.net>,
> "James Johnson" <hu...@inetsurfer.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I use the old 4-button Gravis (but I play ATF (and FFE) without it).
In FFE's case, I'd expect everyone to play without the stick ;P
>I still love my Thrustmaster FCS2. However, my all-time favourite joystick is
>Powerplay's Cruiser Turbo for the Amiga. Can't get them now :-(
Those sticks are ace. Not as good as quickshot's maverick (autofire like nothing
on earth). My poor little cruiser broke, unfortunately. The competition pro,
however is still going strong. Now all i've got to do is get around to actually
building a sneskey interface...
Lewis Jardine Remove "nospam" to reply
parhum
In article <355b0ee9.190095@news>, mzy...@unix.ccc.nottingham.ac.hiccup.uk
(Robert Pfeifer) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 May 1998 10:48:15 GMT, s.cha...@cranfield.ac.uk wrote:
> }In article <na.c40301484...@argonet.co.uk>,
> } parhum <co...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> }>
> }> parhum, buying a peecee sos he can play frontier.
> }
> }Traitor!
/me cowers in the corner, 'no! please dont burn me alive!' <snivel>
if its any compensation i wont use windoze at /all/
> If you ask me, it isn't worth it unless you've got plenty of other
> reasons.
yeh, specially as ive got arcelite ;)
> Or a dirt cheap offer.
its cheap alright :)
nice little laptop doodah
ffe will run on a dx475 no?
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk
In article <01bd7cd2$ad620320$4728...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
"Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > Look. No matter what you say I still stand corrected that US Military
> > > Aircraft ARE without question the best out there.
> >
> > "without question."
>
> The question is who_are_they. Pilots? Military Aviation Officers??? No.
> There is no question, and 12 people who don't have the slightest idea
> of what their getting at don't necessarily mean it's "without question".
Congratulations Louis, you've just contradicted all your previous arguments
:-P
> > > The Eurofighter is no more manuverable, fast or advanced than our
> > > F-16's,
> > > and certainly not more competent in the air as an F-15.
>
> > And your proof is...? Remember that EF2K is still in prototype. In case
> > you
> > didn't know, the current prototype is powered by a reconditioned Tornado
> > powerplant, not the final production engine.
>
> Just by looking at it's size, wing span and engine:
>
> Size: It's smaller than the F-16.
Thus more maneuverable.
> Wing Span: The wings are have a Delta configuration which aren't suited for
> high speed,
> but rather for low altitude performance.
Duh, it has canard foreplanes. what do you think they're for? Decoration?
> > > In fact, there is nothing the RAF has that even comes close to an F-15
> > > in terms of sheer deadliness.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > > Along with that, I saw complete demonstrations by the F-16
> >
> > Ageing, due for a substantial refit.
>
> Doubt it. There was little that could out-turn it. It has a lot of power, it
> cheap
> to make (Only $11,000,000!), and it also was very hard-to spot and carries a
> very high payload despite it's size.
If it wasn't due for a refit, then why have the manufaturers been making
development prototypes for an enhanced version for the last 10 years or so?
Hmm?
> > > F-15
> >
> > Obsolete.
>
> Yeah. Your going to have to really prove this.
F-22. If F-15 wasn't obsolete, why are the USAF replacing it with a new
aircraft?
> The F-15 is probably the best air-to-air fighter in the world.
10 years ago I'd have agreed with you.
> The EF-2K never_could outdo it, neither in payload or maneuverability or
> power. Please!
We'll see.
> > > F-22
> >
> > Twice as expensive as EF2K and not even close to twice as effective.
>
> The F-22 has has_us_scared. The thing can leave the atmosphere (over
> 100,000 ft) is more manuverable than the F-16/F-15 which it was designed
> to replace ,and carries the very latest avionics and radar.
And the operational value of leaving the atmosphere is...?
<snip>
> > > B-2 Stealth Bomber
> >
> > Bomber, with no Anti-Air defence. An Iraqi conscript in a clapped-out
> > Mig-21 could drop it without breaking sweat. Oh, and you can see it on
> > radar when it rains.
>
> Your starting to get like me here Graham ; ) Shooting answers in the dark
> while you have no idea what your talking about.
Hah ha! You confess ;-)
> The B-2 is the most advanced aircraft in the world, you don't think it
> would be very_hard to get a lock on it's heat trail, especially if it was >
> raining? The B-2's engine heat if almost nonexistant.
So non-existant that BAe's latest AA missile defence system merrily tracked it
for several hours... For God's sake, even the US DoD admit that you can see
the thing in the rain!
Oh, and in my example, the MiG would be using guns...
> > > F-117A
>
> > Sluggish handling, can be seen fairly easy when it's raining. Minimal
> > weapons load.
>
> Still hard to track, aquire and fire on. Minimal weapons load but it can
> carry much larger weapons (including nuclear), with probably more precision
> than any other plane ever built.
The whole design assumes that the plane is invisible. All you have to do is
get behind it and select guns.
> > > FA-18
> >
> > Fairly nice, but still not in the same class as EF2K.
>
> Engine it's very powerful, but no more powerful than the EF2K's.
> The EF2K might out-run it, but it's high payload make it an excellent
> strike fighter. It really isn't intended solely for the air-to-air role.
Agreed. From what I hear it was originally designed as ATG.
<snip>
> > > and, of course, the Blue Angels.
> >
> > The cheap US imitation of the Red Arrows.
>
> Ha! You are so full of it. I've never seen the Red Arrows so
> I can't say they aren't good, but the Blue Angels are one excellent
> team! If you say only half of what they do, you wouldn't be
> saying that.
Likewise with the Red Arrows. Anyway, comparing display team is a stupid thing
to do...
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk
In article <35570...@news.cyberlynk.net>,
"James Johnson" <hu...@inetsurfer.net> wrote:
<snip>
> If you want a good, fun Russian jet fighter/bomber game, you should get that
> Su-25 game that came out a few years ago. Crap gfx and sound, but it was
> fun, and it had a great variety of mission (in one, you had to save the
> Russian president). They should make an update of that game, as it yould be
> a breath of fresh air from the
> EF2K/F22/Longbow/Comanchee(spelling?)/M1A2,M1A1/etc, etc.....
You have a point there. You can only take so much sand in a flightsim before
you go insane and buy Microsoft Soccer instead...
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk
In article <6j7j0n$84n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
mcai...@stud.umist.ac.uk wrote:
>
> In article <01bd7cd2$ad620320$4728...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
> "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > Yeah. Your going to have to really prove this. The F-15 is probably the
> > best air-to-air fighter in the world. The EF-2K never_could outdo it,
> > neither in payload or maneuverability or power. Please!
>
> In terms of manoeverability it is nothing special, no way a plane that size
> could outmanoever a modern small fighter no matter how good it was. The
> payload and power are good though but it doesn't have the avionics needed to
> carry some of the most advanced air-air or air-ground weaponry available.
My point exactly...
> > Trust me, no low-level fighter is going to be able to blink if this thing
> > is in the air while it's scooting around.
> Low level has many advantages that high level doesn't.
<snip>
> At 100k feet you can be intercepted by the Mig-25 and other similar planes
> and also be hit with modern SAMs.
Which just about hammered the final nail in the B52's coffin. AFAIR, Mig-25
tops out at about Mach 2.8. It was originally designed to hit speeds at over
Mach 3, and the sole reason for its existance was to intercept a supersonic
high-altitude bomber the US were developing (might have been the orioginal
design of the B1).
> >
> > > > B-2 Stealth Bomber
<snip>
> Unfortunately it also costshalf as much as a Nimitz class aircraft carrier,
> not the most practical plane around.
IMHO the carrier would be a better bet, you'd get operational flexibility out
of it. We could follw the example of USS Reagan and call ours HMS Margret
Thatcher or HMS Iron Lady ;-)
<snip>
> > > > FA-18
> > >
> > > Fairly nice, but still not in the same class as EF2K.
> >
> > Engine it's very powerful, but no more powerful than the EF2K's.
> > The EF2K might out-run it, but it's high payload make it an excellent
> > strike fighter. It really isn't intended solely for the air-to-air role.
> And nice and versatile for carrier useag, my favorite US plane.
Actually, it's mine too. I prefer flying it on Birds of War when the mission
isn't an out-and-out intercept job (where I use EFA instead). Anyone played
F/A-18 Hornet??
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk
In article <01bd7d44$41bb8b60$b11e...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
"Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Based on performance comparisons yes. But remember an entire squadron
> of F117A's went into Bagdad, radar and Sam's everywhere and
> hit heavily guarded command centers. No planes were lost.
Erm, Iraq. Right. Hardly the most well-equipped nation on earth, is it? All of
their inventory are cut-down Soviet export versions, cobbled together from the
nasty parts bin. The most advanced SAM they had was SA-6 IIRC.
Louis J.M
> You have a point there. You can only take so much sand in a flightsim before
> you go insane and buy Microsoft Soccer instead...
Oooh wow. Mircosoft Soccer. You know, you can only take so much of that
mundame kicking and running before you go insane and take it back.
Louis.
Mark J. Hammer
Sorry to barge into the discussion, but I thought I could help shed some light...
To make a blanket statement, the United States *does* generally have the most
advanced aircraft in the world. We also have the most advanced air-to-air and
air-to-ground missile systems. This is not to discount, however, the fact that
european countries' lastest developments.
I'm not saying this in a boastful way, just as a matter of fact.
I can make this claim since I worked deeply with many various system program
offices (SPO's) at Wright-Patterson AFB dealing with many different fighter and
bomber aircraft as well as weaponry. Two of these programs required at least a
level 3 SAR clearance and contained many level 4 vaults.
My 2 cents worth.
Louis J.M
> > In terms of manoeverability it is nothing special, no way a plane that size
> > could outmanoever a modern small fighter no matter how good it was. The
> > payload and power are good though but it doesn't have the avionics needed to
> > carry some of the most advanced air-air or air-ground weaponry available.
The avionics have nothing to do with weapon systems. The F-15 can carry
and launch modern air-to-air missiles more confidently than most fighters. It's
avionics are completely modern, it's radar has excellent range and its targeting
system is first generation.
> My point exactly...
Jane's F-15 is one of the best simulators of the F-15. Rivaling even Su-27 for
sheer realism. I suggest you try that out and you'll get a better idea of why the
F-15 has such an advantage - that is if you have any skill at flight sims.
> > At 100k feet you can be intercepted by the Mig-25 and other similar planes
> > and also be hit with modern SAMs.
No mobile SAM has a higher ceiling than 65,000 ft. And I doubt a Mig-25
will come close to even spotting an F-22.
> Which just about hammered the final nail in the B52's coffin. AFAIR, Mig-25
> tops out at about Mach 2.8.
The MIG-25 is completely outdated. An F-15 can outrun it!
>It was originally designed to hit speeds at over
> Mach 3, and the sole reason for its existance was to intercept a supersonic
> high-altitude bomber the US were developing (might have been the orioginal
> design of the B1).
*Louis shrugs*
> IMHO the carrier would be a better bet, you'd get operational flexibility out
> of it. We could follw the example of USS Reagan and call ours HMS Margret
> Thatcher or HMS Iron Lady ;-)
No, how about the Albright's Quest.
> Actually, it's mine too. I prefer flying it on Birds of War when the mission
> isn't an out-and-out intercept job (where I use EFA instead). Anyone played
> F/A-18 Hornet??
No. Like I said I can't stand that plane for some reason. It just gives me a
headache looking at it.
Louis.
Louis J.M
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk wrote in article <6jhfg3$tkh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <01bd7d44$41bb8b60$b11e...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
> "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Based on performance comparisons yes. But remember an entire squadron
> > of F117A's went into Bagdad, radar and Sam's everywhere and
> > hit heavily guarded command centers. No planes were lost.
>
> Erm, Iraq. Right. Hardly the most well-equipped nation on earth, is it? All of
> their inventory are cut-down Soviet export versions, cobbled together from the
> nasty parts bin. The most advanced SAM they had was SA-6 IIRC.
At the time Bagdad (cute name), was extremely well defended.
You are trying to discredity couragous US pilots and say that getting in there
was no feat. I'd would have liked to see what RAF fighter pilots would have
looked like if they had gone in instead of the US.
Louis.
Louis J.M
> I can make this claim since I worked deeply with many various system program
> offices (SPO's) at Wright-Patterson AFB dealing with many different fighter and
> bomber aircraft as well as weaponry. Two of these programs required at least a
> level 3 SAR clearance and contained many level 4 vaults.
Good. You take over. My fingers are killing me!
Louis.
Dylan Smith
graham.t...@sunderland.ac.uk wrote:
> Which just about hammered the final nail in the B52's coffin. AFAIR, Mig-25
> Mach 3, and the sole reason for its existance was to intercept a supersonic
> high-altitude bomber the US were developing (might have been the orioginal
> design of the B1).
Probably the B-58 "Hustler". The B-58 was a delta-wing, 4 engined
supersonic bomber (there's one at the Lone Star flight museum at
Galveston,
and it's an impressive looking bird). It was only in service for 10
years, and it had a serious flaw - if one of the four engines quit
at supersonic speeds, the plane was lost, and the crew didn't survive
it either despite having ejection seats. A great deal was learned
about supersonic cruising from that bird.
--
Email: dy...@vnet.IBM.COM
Dylan Smith 1810 Space Park Drive, Houston, TX 77573
Standard disclaimer applies.
Anti-spam - Change 'r' to raleigh, 'i' to ibm and 'c' to com.
Dylan Smith
Louis J.M wrote:
> You are trying to discredity couragous US pilots and say that getting in there
> was no feat. I'd would have liked to see what RAF fighter pilots would have
> looked like if they had gone in instead of the US.
Hate to rain on your parade, but the RAF did go into Iraq. The RAF
carried out the dangerous low-level missions using the Tornado, while
the USAF bombed the troops into submission with B52's. Baghdad was
largely attacked using precision weapons such as the Tomahawk cruise
missile. Both air forces did good work there and worked as a team.
Precision bombing was also carried out by both airforces on specific
military targets.
Gerald Pfeifer
On Fri, 15 May 1998 13:38:10 GMT, "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net>
wrote:
}
HERETIC!
3 Hail Marys now!
-Ged
--
Insert signature here.
--
Gerald Pfeifer.
"These pilchards are suspect and should be buried at a depth of no less than three feet."
British Army Ration Packs, 1994
Louis J.M
> }> You have a point there. You can only take so much sand in a flightsim before
> }> you go insane and buy Microsoft Soccer instead...
> }
> }Oooh wow. Mircosoft Soccer. You know, you can only take so much of that
> }mundame kicking and running before you go insane and take it back.
> HERETIC!
>
> 3 Hail Marys now!
Ack! You're worse than your brother!
Rob, do me a kind favor and slap him for me, eh? I'll send you something.
Louis.
Glenn Andrews
In article <01bd7df1$4df2f3c0$271e...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
Kint...@Mediaone.net says...
[snip merits of the Base Nimrod ASW plane as the worlds biggest and best
fighter]
> <Louis flips open a switch, "click", marked with black and yellow
> vertical stripes, which unveils a little red stud. Louis hits the button
> and the window closes>
>
...and of course if you accidentally hit the fire extinguisher for No. #4
engine (as our friend just seems to have done) you have another three to
be completing the mission with.
And FYI, the problem with keeping the window closed at 24k ft. was fixed
on the Comet mk. 2. Nimrods are based on an upgraded mk. 4 airframe. Just
wait till you see the next ones. Or don't, seeing as we came up with 100%
IR cloaking technology...
Regards,
Glenn.
PS: DERA Farnborough are creating claims that someone has created a
perpetual motion machine using a system of heavy masses arranged on a
rotating disc. Sound familiar?
gand...@nospam.demon.co.uk http://www.vetitice.demon.co.uk/home.html
Hint: my email domain is the same as my web domain. Come and visit!
--
"They killed Canopus, the bastards!"
Glenn Andrews, mourning the loss of the last flying Comet 4.
James Johnson
Louis J.M wrote in message
<01bd8006$058986a0$221c...@pompano.net.pompano.net>...
>
>> You have a point there. You can only take so much sand in a flightsim
before
>> you go insane and buy Microsoft Soccer instead...
>
>Oooh wow. Mircosoft Soccer. You know, you can only take so much of that
>mundame kicking and running before you go insane and take it back.
>
>Louis.
Ahh.... MS Soccer. The horrid beast of a soccer game, which got about 16% in
PCG UK. I don't like it too much myself, but that's because I'm not a soccer
nut. Green Bay Packers, however....;)
LordHaHa
Matthew Garrett
> IMHO the carrier would be a better bet, you'd get operational
> flexibility out of it. We could follw the example of USS Reagan and
> call ours HMS Margret Thatcher or HMS Iron Lady ;-)
Except that it'd probably be unexpectedly sunk by its own crew.
--
Matthew Garrett | ca...@enterprise.net
John Jordan
Louis J.M wrote:
>
>At the time Bagdad (cute name), was extremely well defended.
The Iraqis had already lost all their radar systems to Tomahawks so
the SAM systems they had were even more useless than they would have
been otherwise. They had an impressive array of AA guns but the US
planes flew too high to get hit by these. Still, they fired them
randomly imto the sky anyway, as you can see from film records.
And Baghdad has an 'h' in it.
>You are trying to discredity couragous US pilots and say that getting in
>there was no feat.
It was ridiculously easy and they wouldn't have done it otherwise. The
US public don't like bodybags.
> I'd would have liked to see what RAF fighter pilots would have
>looked like if they had gone in instead of the US.
Actually they gave the RAF the difficult job - flying low over Iraqi
airfields with JP223 dispensers. Bloody crazy if you ask me.
--
John
Matt Dibb
John Jordan wrote:
<SNIP>
> > I'd would have liked to see what RAF fighter pilots would have
> >looked like if they had gone in instead of the US.
>
> Actually they gave the RAF the difficult job - flying low over Iraqi
> airfields with JP223 dispensers. Bloody crazy if you ask me.
We would of done it with style ;)
Anyway, aren't we the only country in the world that is able to track
the supposedly 'stealth' planes (and that includes the US)?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Dibb
"...I quietly remind you that, if it were not for us, Mr Clinton, you
lot would be speaking German..."
PS
that was a J O K E to any pissed off Americans reading this
(Pilgrim Fathers, not WW2 in case you were wondering).
Can you believe it 2-0? That ref was bent! (FA Cup final)
Louis J.M
> > > I'd would have liked to see what RAF fighter pilots would have
> > >looked like if they had gone in instead of the US.
> >
> > Actually they gave the RAF the difficult job - flying low over Iraqi
> > airfields with JP223 dispensers. Bloody crazy if you ask me.
I really could care less. The point is we knocked out Iraq because the
United States is the most advanced, best trained military in the world.
> We would of done it with style ;)
> Anyway, aren't we the only country in the world that is able to track
> the supposedly 'stealth' planes (and that includes the US)?
Listen, regardless of what you can track - I really don't care whether or
not you can see the stealth. All I know that if one was sent to ice Buckingham
Palace, it would penetrate England's airspace and destroy_it's_target.
Do not tell me how It wouldn't because it very much so would.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Matt Dibb
> "...I quietly remind you that, if it were not for us, Mr Clinton, you
> lot would be speaking German..."
Good one. Irony is it? Some may not find it very funny...
> that was a J O K E to any pissed off Americans reading this
> (Pilgrim Fathers, not WW2 in case you were wondering).
But there is a serious thing about that joke: Imagine German Pilgrams
colonising the New World and then have a governmental alliance with
Germany into the 1930's/1940's. *shudder*
Louis.
mcai...@stud.umist.ac.uk
In article <6jkc2r$hh6$1...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
ja...@cam.ac.uk (John Jordan) wrote:
>
> Louis J.M wrote:
> >
> >At the time Bagdad (cute name), was extremely well defended.
>
> The Iraqis had already lost all their radar systems to Tomahawks so
> the SAM systems they had were even more useless than they would have
> been otherwise. They had an impressive array of AA guns but the US
> planes flew too high to get hit by these. Still, they fired them
> randomly imto the sky anyway, as you can see from film records.
>
> And Baghdad has an 'h' in it.
>
> >You are trying to discredity couragous US pilots and say that getting in
> >there was no feat.
>
> It was ridiculously easy and they wouldn't have done it otherwise. The
> US public don't like bodybags.
>
> >looked like if they had gone in instead of the US.
>
> Actually they gave the RAF the difficult job - flying low over Iraqi
> airfields with JP223 dispensers. Bloody crazy if you ask me.
ski lifts or cable cars to hit are there, or maybe they would see the power
lines and get confused :)
P.S. Every few years the US and the UK have a bombing competition to test the
low level accuracy of its pilots and jets. The undefeated champion over the
last 30 or so years has been the British Buccaneer, a relic from the 60s, used
in the gulf war to target mark for Tornados. Just to remind everyone that
technology isn't everything...
Dylan Smith
Louis J.M wrote:
> > > Actually they gave the RAF the difficult job - flying low over Iraqi
> > > airfields with JP223 dispensers. Bloody crazy if you ask me.
>
> United States is the most advanced, best trained military in the world.
The U.S. did a good job of course. However, you have to add to the
fact that the Iraqi's were the least advanced, least trained military
in the world and the terrain was suitable for carpet-bombing the
poorly motivated and trained Iraqi conscripts. The USAF worked as
a team with the RAF who did the low level stuff to allow the USAF's
great strength (a large number of B-52's) to perform the said carpet
bombing unimpeded.
> > Anyway, aren't we the only country in the world that is able to track
> > the supposedly 'stealth' planes (and that includes the US)?
>
> Listen, regardless of what you can track - I really don't care whether or
> not you can see the stealth. All I know that if one was sent to ice Buckingham
> Palace, it would penetrate England's airspace and destroy_it's_target.
>
> Do not tell me how It wouldn't because it very much so would.
Louis, I'm sorry - but you made a ridiculous assertation there. If
they can track it with their technology, all they'd need is one
clapped out Hawker Hunter with a gun to take it out. Please quit
making ridiculous assertations - you give the U.S. a bad name!
Think before you post, especially with the illogical drivel you
just posted!
M.A.R. Janssen
On Sat, 16 May 1998 20:21:26 GMT, "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net>
wrote:
>> > Actually they gave the RAF the difficult job - flying low over Iraqi
>> > airfields with JP223 dispensers. Bloody crazy if you ask me.
>
>I really could care less. The point is we knocked out Iraq because the
>United States is the most advanced, best trained military in the world.
Best trained according to the old "Befehl Ist Befehl" doctrine.
A friend of mine who is in the Dutch army and whose unit regularly
goes on excersizes with American units says that they are drilled to
follow orders blindly and not to show any initiative. He maintains
that the best way to take out an American unit is to kill the officers
and NCO's, the remaining forces are easy to pick off after then.
Or has the USAF better standards in training than the US Army?
A while back one of our submarines took out a US Navy aircraft
carrier (one of the big nuclear ones, forgot the name) in a naval war
game, which was supposedly impossible. Still our sub snuck past the
carrier's escorts and placed a makebelief torpedo right up it's bow!
Which says that the largest and most technologically advanced army
isn't perse the best trained one.
I believe a bunch of untrained rice pickers in Vietnam taught you that
lesson! As well as a bunch of malnourished Somalians.
But the biggest enemy of the US Armed Forces is the American public's
opinion. It only takes one body of a downed helicopter pilot, dragged
across the street of Mogadishu, for the mightiest army in the world to
retreat!
And before you say Srebrenica, our Blue Barets who served there have
beaten a crack US armored unit a year after returning from Bosnia
(source: A Safe Area by David Rohde, an American (!) Pulitzer Prize
winner). Somehow I don't believe they would have done better with such
an impossible mandate and virtually no air cover due to UN indecision!
US forces never entered Bosnia until the Dayton Peace Agreement had
been accepted by all sides. Keeping the peace is easier when there's
already peace.
>Listen, regardless of what you can track - I really don't care whether or
>not you can see the stealth. All I know that if one was sent to ice Buckingham
>Palace, it would penetrate England's airspace and destroy_it's_target.
Several people have in recent years take potshots at the centre of
American leadership (the White House) using only affordable assault
rifles!
>But there is a serious thing about that joke: Imagine German Pilgrams
>colonising the New World and then have a governmental alliance with
>Germany into the 1930's/1940's. *shudder*
Which is what a lot of Americans, as well as a lot of Europeans, were
not unfavourable of at the time. The Klan in the USA (2 million
members in America in the '30s), Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts and Lord
Baden Powell (who thought it was a good idea to form a cooperation
between his Boy Scouts and the Hitlerjugend) in Britain, the NSB in
Holland, the Vichy regime in France and the NSDAP in Germany all had
basically the same ideas.
Anyway I have x-posted this to a group where this kind of discussion
is more common, it will be interesting to see what the denizens of
alt.nuke.the.USA have to add to this discussion!
Martijn
Robert Pfeifer
On Fri, 15 May 1998 17:54:03 GMT, "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net>
wrote:
}> }> You have a point there. You can only take so much sand in a flightsim before
}> }> you go insane and buy Microsoft Soccer instead...
}> }
}> }Oooh wow. Mircosoft Soccer. You know, you can only take so much of that
}> }mundame kicking and running before you go insane and take it back.
}
}> HERETIC!
}>
}> 3 Hail Marys now!
}
}Ack! You're worse than your brother!
Take it as a compliment, from Louis.
}Rob, do me a kind favor and slap him for me, eh? I'll send you something.
For you, a mere £15,000 sterling, all 1996 issue, used, no notes of
denomination greater than £10, serial numbers must differ. In advance.
No trouble.
Rob
--
"Nietzsche is dead" - God
Rob Pfeifer - mzyg142 @ unix.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~mzyg142/
Louis J.M
Robert Pfeifer <mzy...@unix.ccc.nottingham.ac.hiccup.uk> wrote in article <355e29de.322904@news>...
> On Fri, 15 May 1998 17:54:03 GMT, "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net>
> wrote:
>
> }> }> You have a point there. You can only take so much sand in a flightsim before
> }> }> you go insane and buy Microsoft Soccer instead...
> }> }
> }> }Oooh wow. Mircosoft Soccer. You know, you can only take so much of that
> }> }mundame kicking and running before you go insane and take it back.
> }
> }> HERETIC!
> }>
> }> 3 Hail Marys now!
> }
> }Ack! You're worse than your brother!
>
> Take it as a compliment, from Louis.
>
> }Rob, do me a kind favor and slap him for me, eh? I'll send you something.
>
> For you, a mere £15,000 sterling, all 1996 issue, used, no notes of
> denomination greater than £10, serial numbers must differ. In advance.
Ack, you're worse than Jades!
Forget it. I'll take care of this myself...
*Louis quickly runs across the Atlantic ocean, breaks into Rob's
dorm, jogs over to Rob and slaps him hard upside the head*
Hehehe...
Louis.
Louis J.M
> >> > Actually they gave the RAF the difficult job - flying low over Iraqi
> >> > airfields with JP223 dispensers. Bloody crazy if you ask me.
> >
> >I really could care less. The point is we knocked out Iraq because the
> >United States is the most advanced, best trained military in the world.
>
> Best trained according to the old "Befehl Ist Befehl" doctrine.
Translated: Better is Better.
Explain.
> A friend of mine who is in the Dutch army and whose unit regularly
> goes on excersizes with American units says that they are drilled to
> follow orders blindly and not to show any initiative. He maintains
> that the best way to take out an American unit is to kill the officers
> and NCO's, the remaining forces are easy to pick off after then.
First of all, if you're talking about the standard ARMY grunt, that
maybe true. But when you get into the Marines and NAVY SEALS,
then they are 100% more independent.
> Or has the USAF better standards in training than the US Army?
Two completely different types of training. One, the ARMY trains
soldiers to follow orders and not a lot of independence is placed
on one soldier unless he's the leader or commander.
The USAF trains aviators. They have to handle situations on their
own, and make decisions based on their own judgement.
> A while back one of our submarines took out a US Navy aircraft
> carrier (one of the big nuclear ones, forgot the name) in a naval war
> game, which was supposedly impossible. Still our sub snuck past the
> carrier's escorts and placed a makebelief torpedo right up it's bow!
That's still a simulation - and not real.
> Which says that the largest and most technologically advanced army
> isn't perse the best trained one.
???
> I believe a bunch of untrained rice pickers in Vietnam taught you that
> lesson! As well as a bunch of malnourished Somalians.
The Vietnamese were given AK-47's and were trained by the Russians
on how to use them and fight. The Americans, most thrown into the war
unwillingly and who didn't have the fanaticism that compromised much
of the Vietnamese army, were about as much as trained as the
Vietnamese.
> But the biggest enemy of the US Armed Forces is the American public's
> opinion. It only takes one body of a downed helicopter pilot, dragged
> across the street of Mogadishu, for the mightiest army in the world to
> retreat!
Nobody retreated. The Vietnamese were practically annihilated after
the US ARMY had finished sorting them out.
>
> Several people have in recent years take potshots at the centre of
> American leadership (the White House) using only affordable assault
> rifles!
None have succeeded.
> Which is what a lot of Americans, as well as a lot of Europeans, were
> not unfavourable of at the time. The Klan in the USA (2 million
> members in America in the '30s), Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts and Lord
> Baden Powell (who thought it was a good idea to form a cooperation
> between his Boy Scouts and the Hitlerjugend) in Britain, the NSB in
> Holland, the Vichy regime in France and the NSDAP in Germany all had
> basically the same ideas.
I hope they aren't planning anything in my area.. , = (
> Anyway I have x-posted this to a group where this kind of discussion
> is more common, it will be interesting to see what the denizens of
> alt.nuke.the.USA have to add to this discussion!
We'll have another war!
Louis.
M.A.R. Janssen
On Sun, 17 May 1998 03:22:22 GMT, "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net>
wrote:
>
>> >> > Actually they gave the RAF the difficult job - flying low over Iraqi
>> >> > airfields with JP223 dispensers. Bloody crazy if you ask me.
>> >
>> >I really could care less. The point is we knocked out Iraq because the
>> >United States is the most advanced, best trained military in the world.
>>
>> Best trained according to the old "Befehl Ist Befehl" doctrine.
>
>Translated: Better is Better.
>
>Explain.
Get a German - English dictionary and look it up yarself!
>First of all, if you're talking about the standard ARMY grunt, that
>maybe true. But when you get into the Marines and NAVY SEALS,
>then they are 100% more independent.
Well our Royal Marines are even better trained than our regular army.
During the Gulf War the USA declined our offer to send our Marines
into Kuwait. Maybe they did not want their own to be embarrassed by
soldiers from a country much smaller than theirs.
The only thing is that the USA has so much manpower (the Armed Forces
is the biggest job creation project in the States, offering jobs to
many people who'd otherwise end up in gangs or in the unemployment
lines) and your government can get away with spending ludicrous
amounts of tax payers money on cross-developing military hardware in
as much states as possible, to keep all the old Senators happy.
Otherwise your Armed Forces ain't that much special.
I reckon the best trained military are crack Israeli army units.
Because they have seen plenty of action over the years and experience
is the best training there is. No European and American troops have
been in so much shit as they have been in.
Israel is the perfect example that a tiny country can defend itself
very well against larger foes. But it takes a lot of commitment from
the people (6 years of draft for men and 3 for women).
>> A while back one of our submarines took out a US Navy aircraft
>> carrier (one of the big nuclear ones, forgot the name) in a naval war
>> game, which was supposedly impossible. Still our sub snuck past the
>> carrier's escorts and placed a makebelief torpedo right up it's bow!
>
>That's still a simulation - and not real.
Still, with lack of any real war, a simulation is all there is to test
the effectiveness of any armed units. But I agree that in a real
conflict things are always different.
>> Which says that the largest and most technologically advanced army
>> isn't perse the best trained one.
>
>???
See my comments about Israel above.
>The Vietnamese were given AK-47's and were trained by the Russians
>on how to use them and fight. The Americans, most thrown into the war
>unwillingly and who didn't have the fanaticism that compromised much
>of the Vietnamese army, were about as much as trained as the
>Vietnamese.
Yes, but the American leadership was convinced that it was an easy win
and that the troops would be home in a few months time. It turned out
quite differently as they thought. Because the Vietnamese were indeed
quite fanatic. People who fight for their own independence (under
whatever banner) are always more fanatic and therefore more effective
than soldiers who are sent half way around the world to do a dirty job
for their government, not their people. The irony of the comparison
between Vietnam and the USA's own revolutionary past is mindblowing.
In both cases the most powerful army in the world tried to suppress an
insurgency in faraway 'colonies' and lost because of the sheer
determinancy of the people they were fighting against. The North
Vietnamese won in the end because their people were willing to take
more sacrifices than the Americans. How many American soldiers died?
60,000? The Vietnamese people in whole suffered more than 2 million
casualties!
We learned the same lessons in Indonesia (1946-48).
>Nobody retreated. The Vietnamese were practically annihilated after
>the US ARMY had finished sorting them out.
Not annihilated enough to take over Southern Vietnam in the two years
after the USA retreated!
>> Several people have in recent years take potshots at the centre of
>> American leadership (the White House) using only affordable assault
>> rifles!
>
>None have succeeded.
That isn't the point, dear Louis. The point is that taking out a
solitary building isn't such a great test of military skills, no
matter which building it is.
>> Which is what a lot of Americans, as well as a lot of Europeans, were
>> not unfavourable of at the time. The Klan in the USA (2 million
>> members in America in the '30s), Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts and Lord
>> Baden Powell (who thought it was a good idea to form a cooperation
>> between his Boy Scouts and the Hitlerjugend) in Britain, the NSB in
>> Holland, the Vichy regime in France and the NSDAP in Germany all had
>> basically the same ideas.
>
>I hope they aren't planning anything in my area.. , = (
Fortunately most of these organisations/people are dead. Their
decendants live on in the shadows though, everywhere, and we must stay
vigilant that they stay there and never get a chance of taking over
rule again.
>> Anyway I have x-posted this to a group where this kind of discussion
>> is more common, it will be interesting to see what the denizens of
>> alt.nuke.the.USA have to add to this discussion!
>
>We'll have another war!
Yes, it would be if the likes of Eisen Chao and Ijdo would
participate!
Eisen and Ijdo, where are you?
Martijn
mcai...@stud.umist.ac.uk
In article <01bd8142$53f917a0$121d...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
"Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
> maybe true. But when you get into the Marines and NAVY SEALS,
> then they are 100% more independent.
I saw a documentary recently about the French Foriegn Legion. They have a huge
assault course somewhere in the rainforest that is frequently "borrowed" by
other countries elite forces toi test their ability and stamina. The fastest
time ever recorded was just over an hour by a unit f he Foreign Legion, the
longest ever time recorded was over 12 hours (IIRC) by a unit of US Marines.
Funniest thing i'd seen in years. The Legionaire (sp?) was pissing himself
laughing while telling this story.
Matt Dibb
In better times, we (England, GB, UK - what ever) had the biggest empire
ever (well, almost). Covering about about a third of the globe or
something, pretty impressive huh? We have kept up this tradition for
military superiority. We had nukes at the same time as the US, we had
jet engines before them, we even had our own space race at one point!
Ahh, wasn't the cold war wonderful?, its just a shame Reagan and
Gorbachev stopped it ;)
Louis J.M
M.A.R. Janssen <m...@dsv.nl> wrote in article <355e7b71...@news.dsv.nl>...
> On Sun, 17 May 1998 03:22:22 GMT, "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> >> > Actually they gave the RAF the difficult job - flying low over Iraqi
> >> >> > airfields with JP223 dispensers. Bloody crazy if you ask me.
> >> >
> >> >I really could care less. The point is we knocked out Iraq because the
> >> >United States is the most advanced, best trained military in the world.
> >>
> >> Best trained according to the old "Befehl Ist Befehl" doctrine.
> >
> >Translated: Better is Better.
> >
> >Explain.
>
> Get a German - English dictionary and look it up yarself!
>
> >First of all, if you're talking about the standard ARMY grunt, that
> >maybe true. But when you get into the Marines and NAVY SEALS,
> >then they are 100% more independent.
>
> Well our Royal Marines are even better trained than our regular army.
>
> During the Gulf War the USA declined our offer to send our Marines
> into Kuwait. Maybe they did not want their own to be embarrassed by
> soldiers from a country much smaller than theirs.
That's an stupid comment. The US. declined to use England's Marines
because we could do it ourselves.
> The only thing is that the USA has so much manpower (the Armed Forces
> is the biggest job creation project in the States, offering jobs to
> many people who'd otherwise end up in gangs or in the unemployment
> lines) and your government can get away with spending ludicrous
> amounts of tax payers money on cross-developing military hardware in
> as much states as possible, to keep all the old Senators happy.
> Otherwise your Armed Forces ain't that much special.
That is entirely false. I can only imagine what your goverment
does behind people's backs. There's a lot more scandal in that
monarchy than any other that ever existed before it.
> I reckon the best trained military are crack Israeli army units.
> Because they have seen plenty of action over the years and experience
> is the best training there is. No European and American troops have
> been in so much shit as they have been in.
Israeli soldiers at their start wer people who were forced to fight.
They weren't trained, they know little of what even the our grunt's know.
> Israel is the perfect example that a tiny country can defend itself
> very well against larger foes. But it takes a lot of commitment from
> the people (6 years of draft for men and 3 for women).
Still they aren't. If you put one of our NAVY SEALS next to a top Israeli
soldier, with no weapons, the Navy Seal would win.
> >> A while back one of our submarines took out a US Navy aircraft
> >> carrier (one of the big nuclear ones, forgot the name) in a naval war
> >> game, which was supposedly impossible. Still our sub snuck past the
> >> carrier's escorts and placed a makebelief torpedo right up it's bow!
> >
> >That's still a simulation - and not real.
> Still, with lack of any real war, a simulation is all there is to test
> the effectiveness of any armed units.
Not always.
> >The Vietnamese were given AK-47's and were trained by the Russians
> >on how to use them and fight. The Americans, most thrown into the war
> >unwillingly and who didn't have the fanaticism that compromised much
> >of the Vietnamese army, were about as much as trained as the
> >Vietnamese.
>
> Yes, but the American leadership was convinced that it was an easy win
> and that the troops would be home in a few months time. It turned out
> quite differently as they thought. Because the Vietnamese were indeed
> quite fanatic. People who fight for their own independence (under
> whatever banner) are always more fanatic and therefore more effective
> than soldiers who are sent half way around the world to do a dirty job
> for their government, not their people. The irony of the comparison
> between Vietnam and the USA's own revolutionary past is mindblowing.
> In both cases the most powerful army in the world tried to suppress an
> insurgency in faraway 'colonies' and lost because of the sheer
> determinancy of the people they were fighting against. The North
> Vietnamese won in the end because their people were willing to take
> more sacrifices than the Americans. How many American soldiers died?
> 60,000? The Vietnamese people in whole suffered more than 2 million
> casualties!
Well I guess that says it. If the armies were equally pared up. Who would
win - the United States.
> >Nobody retreated. The Vietnamese were practically annihilated after
> >the US ARMY had finished sorting them out.
> Not annihilated enough to take over Southern Vietnam in the two years
> after the USA retreated!
They *were* fanatical.
> That isn't the point, dear Louis. The point is that taking out a
> solitary building isn't such a great test of military skills, no
> matter which building it is.
How about your house?
> >> Which is what a lot of Americans, as well as a lot of Europeans, were
> >> not unfavourable of at the time. The Klan in the USA (2 million
> >> members in America in the '30s), Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts and Lord
> >> Baden Powell (who thought it was a good idea to form a cooperation
> >> between his Boy Scouts and the Hitlerjugend) in Britain, the NSB in
> >> Holland, the Vichy regime in France and the NSDAP in Germany all had
> >> basically the same ideas.
> >
> >I hope they aren't planning anything in my area.. , = (
>
> Fortunately most of these organisations/people are dead. Their
> decendants live on in the shadows though, everywhere, and we must stay
> vigilant that they stay there and never get a chance of taking over
> rule again.
Too late. There is a great racial uprising in this country right now that is
gigantic.
> Yes, it would be if the likes of Eisen Chao and Ijdo would
> participate!
> Eisen and Ijdo, where are you?
I think they went to go get thier name changed. They'll probably be right
back in a few hours. Probably with a better self esteem level.
Louis.
Paul Taylor
>Nobody retreated. The Vietnamese were practically annihilated after
>the US ARMY had finished sorting them out.
>>
Ohh... I see.. you mean you won then :)
Paul T
Louis J.M
Now the UK is far behind us...
Paul Taylor
>Still they aren't. If you put one of our NAVY SEALS next to a top Israeli
>soldier, with no weapons, the Navy Seal would win.
I'm sure he would, but like you say, only if the Israeli had no weapons :)
Paul T
Paul Taylor
>Still they aren't. If you put one of our NAVY SEALS next to a top Israeli
>soldier, with no weapons, the Navy Seal would win.
I'm sure you're right ,but only under the conditions that you name here..
ie. the Israeli has no weapons :)
Paul T
Louis J.M
SEALS are much better trained with weapons (i.e HK MP5-K) than an Israeli crack
troop. If the SEAL had a weapon then he would have the definite advantage, which
is why I compared the two fighting without any weapons. SEALS aren't trained to
depend on them.
Louis.
Louis J.M
> >Still they aren't. If you put one of our NAVY SEALS next to a top Israeli
> >soldier, with no weapons, the Navy Seal would win.
>
>
> I'm sure he would, but like you say, only if the Israeli had no weapons :)
If both had weapons most likely the SEAL would win. IF this took place within
3 feet and the SEAL was unarmed, then he would win even faster!
Louis.
Dan Browne
On Sun, 17 May 1998 05:54:25 GMT, m...@dsv.nl (M.A.R. Janssen) wrote:
>I reckon the best trained military are crack Israeli army units.
>Because they have seen plenty of action over the years and experience
>is the best training there is. No European and American troops have
>been in so much shit as they have been in.
Whilst I agree that the Israelis are probably the best trained
military in the world today it is *not* true that there are no
Europeans who have been in so much "shit". The Brits have been in
Northern Ireland for quite a while longer than the Israelis have been
in Palestine. They have also fought similar numbers of hot wars. I'd
say the Brits have the best experience against guerrila warfare of any
of the advanced nations.
Cheers,
Dan
Dan Browne
On Sun, 17 May 1998 03:22:22 GMT, "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net>
wrote:
>Someone wrote:
>> But the biggest enemy of the US Armed Forces is the American public's
>> opinion. It only takes one body of a downed helicopter pilot, dragged
>> across the street of Mogadishu, for the mightiest army in the world to
>> retreat!
>
>Nobody retreated. The Vietnamese were practically annihilated after
>the US ARMY had finished sorting them out.
I believe your response is a case in point you fucking yank
undereducated moron. Go look up which country Mogadishu is actually
in. Idiot.
Cheers,
Dan
Louis J.M
> I believe your response is a case in point you fucking yank
> undereducated moron. Go look up which country Mogadishu is actually
> in. Idiot.
I kick jour' ass! Jou' f*cking little monkey!
Louis.
Matthew Garrett
> That's an stupid comment. The US. declined to use England's Marines
> because we could do it ourselves.
So the reason that there were other countries present was that the US
couldn't cope on its own?
> That is entirely false. I can only imagine what your goverment
> does behind people's backs. There's a lot more scandal in that
> monarchy than any other that ever existed before it.
Louis, the monarchy has almost nothing to do with the running of the
country. It makes no difference whatsoever who is on the throne,
because the monarchy no longer has any real power. Any scandal in the
monarchy bears this much resemblance to government actions - none.
Given that you don't appear to know anything about how the UK is run,
why should we believe that you know anything about anything else in
the UK?
> Israeli soldiers at their start wer people who were forced to fight.
> They weren't trained, they know little of what even the our grunt's know.
So?
> Still they aren't. If you put one of our NAVY SEALS next to a top Israeli
> soldier, with no weapons, the Navy Seal would win.
Based on what evidence?
> > That isn't the point, dear Louis. The point is that taking out a
> > solitary building isn't such a great test of military skills, no
> > matter which building it is.
>
> How about your house?
Eh?
> Too late. There is a great racial uprising in this country right now that is
> gigantic.
Well, I hope you're doing something about it rather than just sitting
there and complaining. For instance.
--
Matthew Garrett | ca...@enterprise.net
M.A.R. Janssen
On Sun, 17 May 1998 13:30:31 GMT, "Louis J.M" <Kint...@Mediaone.net>
wrote:
>That's an stupid comment. The US. declined to use England's Marines
>because we could do it ourselves.
Aah, you're not checking headers, I see!
I am not from England, but from The Netherlands. Even our 15.5 million
large population can produce a Marine Corps that would be a good match
for the U.S. Marine Corps (one on one, not all of them, of course).
>That is entirely false. I can only imagine what your goverment
>does behind people's backs. There's a lot more scandal in that
>monarchy than any other that ever existed before it.
Fortunately our monarchy were potty trained when they were young and
know how to behave! ;-)
>Israeli soldiers at their start wer people who were forced to fight.
>They weren't trained, they know little of what even the our grunt's know.
Oh!really, I s'pose they don't know what the fastest way is to devour
a BigMac, but they did know how to fight for the chance to shape their
own destiny. I wouldn't dis the old Haganah and Irgun fighters in
their face even today in their own age. They're a mean bunch, hardened
by the horrors of the death camps and the Arab-Israeli wars.
>Still they aren't. If you put one of our NAVY SEALS next to a top Israeli
>soldier, with no weapons, the Navy Seal would win.
Yeah, right, and when you look up in the sky you will see pigs fly!
>Well I guess that says it. If the armies were equally pared up. Who would
>win - the United States.
Yes, and if the same was done in the 1700s, you would be living in the
British States of America.
Wars are seldomly fought under ideal conditions. The army that looks
best on paper doesn't always win. There are other considerations that
play a role.
>They *were* fanatical.
Yes, and the American revolutionaries weren't?
>How about your house?
I am fully insured, so gladly send in one of your missiles! When I'm
somewhere else, of course!
>Too late. There is a great racial uprising in this country right now that is
>gigantic.
Has this something to do with the sorry condition many blacks have to
live in, in the United States. A young black man is far more likely to
end up in jail or die prematurely than to get a college degree. The
State of California spends far more on it's prison system than on
their education system.
American universities are the best in the world, but many highschools
are in an educational crisis, with standards slipping continously.
How about fixing that, before funding the next military mega-project?
It will probably be a while before the next great war will happen, but
every year more of your young people graduate from high school with
inefficient credentials or don't graduate at all.
Get your priorities straight, bubba!
>I think they went to go get thier name changed. They'll probably be right
>back in a few hours. Probably with a better self esteem level.
Don't tell that in their face, you'll never get free of them then!
They just love to get insulted!
Martijn
...............................................................
America is the only nation in history which miraculously has
gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual
interval of civilization. -- Georges Clemenceau
...............................................................
(the only time in history when a Frog said something sensible)
M.A.R. Janssen
One fine day, on Sun, 17 May 1998 15:25:15 GMT, "Louis J.M"
<Kint...@Mediaone.net> waffled in alt.fan.elite:
>SEALS are much better trained with weapons (i.e HK MP5-K) than an Israeli crack
>troop. If the SEAL had a weapon then he would have the definite advantage, which
>is why I compared the two fighting without any weapons. SEALS aren't trained to
>depend on them.
But how many times do SEALS see action? Don't they get used to wipe
out the henchmen of drug dealers, hardly elite fighting units? It
doesn't matter what training you got, only real combat action is the
true test of your worth as a soldier.
Sometimes even a humble rice picker can outwit a top Marine 'jarhead'.
It depends on the conditions, really.
Glenn Andrews
In article <01bd8197$8d207000$151d...@pompano.net.pompano.net>,
Kint...@Mediaone.net says...
year. Took it apart, put it back together and now it's about two hundred
percent more efficient.
Don't underestimate the military research system that created thermal
imaging cameras, flat-panel TV screens and what is currently the fastest
semiconductor technology in the world (and if Intel ask nicely we might
licence it to them) Not to mention the only aircraft in the world that
can break mach one without burner.
Regards,
Glenn
gand...@nospam.demon.co.uk http://www.vetitice.demon.co.uk/home.html
Hint: my email domain is the same as my web domain. Come and visit!
--
"Existem Seule si Servillo"
Glenn Andrews, Dangerous and on the edge of a Vipers sting.
Louis J.M
> > That's an stupid comment. The US. declined to use England's Marines
> > because we could do it ourselves.
>
> couldn't cope on its own?
>
> > does behind people's backs. There's a lot more scandal in that
> > monarchy than any other that ever existed before it.
> country.
OH really. And the CPU chip in my PC has nothing to do with running my
OS.
>It makes no difference whatsoever who is on the throne,
> because the monarchy no longer has any real power. Any scandal in the
> monarchy bears this much resemblance to government actions - none.
How would I know? I just know that the British goverment isn't perfect, far
from it in fact and you guys have a history of inconsistent goverment.
> Given that you don't appear to know anything about how the UK is run,
> why should we believe that you know anything about anything else in
> the UK?
Likewise.
> So?
Because training is what educates someone how to fight with weapons, knives
and body weapons. All the experience in the world won't win against somenne
who is educated and knows what he's doing. Duck and run tactics are natural,
what makes men come out of the fray are tactics.
> > Still they aren't. If you put one of our NAVY SEALS next to a top Israeli
> > soldier, with no weapons, the Navy Seal would win.
>
> Based on what evidence?
It's obvious. A goverment in chaos, which has little money resevers or advanced
training techniques or knowledge can't be up to the level of the US. We spend
over $350,000 on each SEAL just to go through basic training?
> > How about your house?
>
> Eh?
*BOOM*
> Well, I hope you're doing something about it rather than just sitting
> there and complaining. For instance.
For instance what? How am I supposed to do that. Let that fat Hippo
Oprah handle that..
Louis.
Louis J.M
> >That's an stupid comment. The US. declined to use England's Marines
> >because we could do it ourselves.
>
> Aah, you're not checking headers, I see!
>
> I am not from England, but from The Netherlands. Even our 15.5 million
> large population can produce a Marine Corps that would be a good match
> for the U.S. Marine Corps (one on one, not all of them, of course).
>
> >That is entirely false. I can only imagine what your goverment
> >does behind people's backs. There's a lot more scandal in that
> >monarchy than any other that ever existed before it.
>
> Fortunately our monarchy were potty trained when they were young and
> know how to behave! ;-)
>
> >Israeli soldiers at their start wer people who were forced to fight.
> >They weren't trained, they know little of what even the our grunt's know.
>
> Oh!really, I s'pose they don't know what the fastest way is to devour
> a BigMac,
No! Enlighten me! ; )
OH better not. I eat fast already.
but they did know how to fight for the chance to shape their
> own destiny. I wouldn't dis the old Haganah and Irgun fighters in
> their face even today in their own age. They're a mean bunch, hardened
> by the horrors of the death camps and the Arab-Israeli wars.
Yes, but you don't get it that Training is also a key figure in someone's
survivability. Any SAS member will tell you that. Experiance is great, but
training is the real deciding factor.
> >Still they aren't. If you put one of our NAVY SEALS next to a top Israeli
> >soldier, with no weapons, the Navy Seal would win.
> Yeah, right, and when you look up in the sky you will see pigs fly!
Let me get this strait. You_are saying a top notch soldier, the best the
US puts out, will not be able to defeat (unarmed?) a standard Israeli freedom
fighter? You are a complete idiot and you have no idea what you are
talking about.
> Yes, and if the same was done in the 1700s, you would be living in the
> British States of America.
It was. Remeber the Revolutionary war? You hapless tea-drinking tired
sons of an old monarchy fought like cowards, walked stupidly through
the valleys as scores of them were killed by American soldiers.
US - first in combat!
> Wars are seldomly fought under ideal conditions. The army that looks
> best on paper doesn't always win. There are other considerations that
> play a role.
Like your mother being sent.
> Yes, and the American revolutionaries weren't?
OH yes they were. They bagged a lot of Brits.
> Has this something to do with the sorry condition many blacks have to
> live in, in the United States.
Don't put that on us! You are the ones who started slavery in the first place!
A young black man is far more likely to
> end up in jail or die prematurely than to get a college degree. The
> State of California spends far more on it's prison system than on
> their education system.
I agree. They should just shoot them all.
> American universities are the best in the world, but many highschools
> are in an educational crisis, with standards slipping continously.
I thought England's universities were the best. Isn't Harvard or Yale the best?
> How about fixing that, before funding the next military mega-project?
Tell that to that draft dodger we have up at the White House. He makes
this country look like a nation run by 5 year olds who are just discovering
humanitarianism.
> It will probably be a while before the next great war will happen, but
> every year more of your young people graduate from high school with
> inefficient credentials or don't graduate at all.
>
> Get your priorities straight, bubba!
I really wish someone would sock him. >= O
Louis.
Paul Taylor
>> Has this something to do with the sorry condition many blacks have to
>> live in, in the United States.
>
>Don't put that on us! You are the ones who started slavery in the first
place!
Hmm.. actually it goes way back to Roman times and even beyond then..
It was the US that seemed the most reluctant to get rid of it though..
>A young black man is far more likely to
>> end up in jail or die prematurely than to get a college degree. The
>> State of California spends far more on it's prison system than on
>> their education system.
>
>I agree. They should just shoot them all.
Oh my God.. I do _not_ believe you just wrote that.. I'm gonna take this to
be a total troll and leave this thread where it just died. Jesus..
Paul T
Louis J.M
> >A young black man is far more likely to
> >> end up in jail or die prematurely than to get a college degree. The
> >> State of California spends far more on it's prison system than on
> >> their education system.
> >
> >I agree. They should just shoot them all.
> Oh my God.. I do _not_ believe you just wrote that.. I'm gonna take this to
> be a total troll and leave this thread where it just died. Jesus..
What, you have a brother in prison of something? What I'm saying is that
why should we keep wasting thousands of dollars just to keep someone
in prison when we could be using the money for education. It'd be easier
just to shoot them all instead of directing all that money to house prisoners
who have denied people their lives.
Louis.
Matthew Garrett
> > Louis, the monarchy has almost nothing to do with the running of the
> > country.
>
> OH really. And the CPU chip in my PC has nothing to do with running my
> OS.
Government - group of politicians elected approximately once every 5
years. The largest grouping of these politicians forms the government,
which then enacts legislation.
Monarchy - German descended family who are involved in the state
opening of parliament and the formal signing of legislation.
Theoretically, the Queen could refuse to allow a law to pass, although
this would lead to a constitutional crisis and all sorts of bad
things. A holdover from Merrie Olde England.
To put this into perspective, since the English Civil War, the monarch
hasn't been allowed into parliament. They do not run the country. Is
that too difficult to understand?
> How would I know? I just know that the British goverment isn't perfect, far
> from it in fact and you guys have a history of inconsistent goverment.
Of course it's not perfect. But I'm intruiged as to what you mean by
"Inconsistant government".
> > Given that you don't appear to know anything about how the UK is run,
> > why should we believe that you know anything about anything else in
> > the UK?
>
> Likewise.
The difference is that I know how the US is run. I don't go around
saying things like "Ronald Reagan runs the United States", do I?
> Because training is what educates someone how to fight with weapons, knives
> and body weapons. All the experience in the world won't win against somenne
> who is educated and knows what he's doing. Duck and run tactics are natural,
> what makes men come out of the fray are tactics.
Simple Darwinian evolutionary theory can be applied to the situation.
If you survive one military encounter, you're more likely to survive
another. All the training in the world isn't going to help if it's
useless, is it?
> It's obvious. A goverment in chaos, which has little money resevers or advanced
> training techniques or knowledge can't be up to the level of the US. We spend
> over $350,000 on each SEAL just to go through basic training?
Again, this makes little difference if the quality of the training is
not of the same standard. Once you have performed a rigerous
examination of both Isreali and US military training procedures I'll
be willing to listen to that argument.
> > > How about your house?
> >
> > Eh?
>
> *BOOM*
Coming from Northern Ireland, I find that statement to be in poor
taste.
> For instance what? How am I supposed to do that. Let that fat Hippo
> Oprah handle that..
It's the land of opportunity. You can do whatever you want, as long as
you work hard enough. Write to your Congressman. Get petitions.
Organise protest groups. Become a major political movement. Just so
long as you do something if it worries you.
--
Matthew Garrett | ca...@enterprise.net
Matthew Garrett
> > Yes, and if the same was done in the 1700s, you would be living in the
> > British States of America.
>
> It was. Remeber the Revolutionary war? You hapless tea-drinking tired
> sons of an old monarchy fought like cowards, walked stupidly through
> the valleys as scores of them were killed by American soldiers.
Louis, did you miss the bit where he said that he was from the
Netherlands?
> US - first in combat!
Only because you haven't discovered the art of peacful settlements
yet.
> OH yes they were. They bagged a lot of Brits.
OK. First you say that the Vietnamese beat the superior US because the
Vietnamese were fanatical. Now you say that the US beat the inferior
British because the US were fanatical. These arguments are inherently
self-contradictory.
> Don't put that on us! You are the ones who started slavery in the first place!
"Hey, it's not our fault that we subjugated millions of slaves - they
started it in the first place!"
> I agree. They should just shoot them all.
A pleasingly enlightened view, yes.
> I thought England's universities were the best. Isn't Harvard or Yale the best?
Sorry? What?
> Tell that to that draft dodger we have up at the White House. He makes
> this country look like a nation run by 5 year olds who are just discovering
> humanitarianism.
So why don't you do somehting about it, instead of just complaining?
> I really wish someone would sock him. >= O
You're incapable of doing it yourself, then?
--
Matthew Garrett | ca...@enterprise.net
Louis J.M
> > It was. Remeber the Revolutionary war? You hapless tea-drinking tired
> > sons of an old monarchy fought like cowards, walked stupidly through
> > the valleys as scores of them were killed by American soldiers.
>
> Louis, did you miss the bit where he said that he was from the
> Netherlands?
Yes.
I was referring to the Royal Army though.
> Only because you haven't discovered the art of peacful settlements
> yet.
Look who's talking. The peopel of India are really happy that you've invaded
their land, commercialized it and taken it over.
> OK. First you say that the Vietnamese beat the superior US because the
> Vietnamese were fanatical.
No, just had that fighting edge. Intensive training they did not have.
>Now you say that the US beat the inferior
> British because the US were fanatical. These arguments are inherently
> self-contradictory.
In the 1700's US soldiers were. There is a vast space of time between the
1700's and 1960's. Obviously. How are they self contradictory? I just said
the people who faught in the revolutionary war - the United States - were
very much fanatical. They hid behind rocks while British soldiers marched
blindly and without cover, they_invented tactial combat. (With the exception
of China and Japan).
> > I agree. They should just shoot them all.
>
> A pleasingly enlightened view, yes.
>
> > I thought England's universities were the best. Isn't Harvard or Yale the best?
> Sorry? What?
Cool! Now I don't have to deal with any Robert Pfeifer's If I'm ever able
to go to the best University in the United States.
> > Tell that to that draft dodger we have up at the White House. He makes
> > this country look like a nation run by 5 year olds who are just discovering
> > humanitarianism.
>
> So why don't you do somehting about it, instead of just complaining?
Like what? Throw a pie in his face?
> You're incapable of doing it yourself, then?
No, I just don't have the nerve. Surely someone else will. Or worse.
Louis.
ADM
Jesus, what a wanker you are. What the fuck do you know about the "seals"
you're just a sad little fuck who probably believes all his own country's
propaganda. I bet you even saw the film NAVY SEALS didn't you ? In fact, you
probably didn't even realise it was fictional.
Do you get a hard on every time you think about the seals ? Do you go to bed
wearing black webbing and cuddling an MP5 ?
Louis J.M wrote in message
<01bd81a7$83681580$1128...@pompano.net.pompano.net>...
>
>> >Still they aren't. If you put one of our NAVY SEALS next to a top
Israeli
>> >soldier, with no weapons, the Navy Seal would win.
>>
>>
ADM
Louis J.M wrote in message
<01bd81e2$3c2cc180$3d1e...@pompano.net.pompano.net>...
>> >Israeli soldiers at their start wer people who were forced to fight.
>> >They weren't trained, they know little of what even the our grunt's
know.
>>
>> Oh!really, I s'pose they don't know what the fastest way is to devour
>> a BigMac,
>
>No! Enlighten me! ; )
>
>OH better not. I eat fast already.
You really surprise me. I'm sure you are quite capable of stuffing burgers
into your fat mouth very quickly indeed, you overweight, greasy retarded
yank tosser. Why don't you try some real nutritious food for a change ?
>
>but they did know how to fight for the chance to shape their
>> own destiny. I wouldn't dis the old Haganah and Irgun fighters in
>> their face even today in their own age. They're a mean bunch, hardened
>> by the horrors of the death camps and the Arab-Israeli wars.
>
>Yes, but you don't get it that Training is also a key figure in someone's
>survivability. Any SAS member will tell you that. Experiance is great, but
>training is the real deciding factor.
>
>> >Still they aren't. If you put one of our NAVY SEALS next to a top
Israeli
>> >soldier, with no weapons, the Navy Seal would win.
>
>> Yeah, right, and when you look up in the sky you will see pigs fly!
>
>Let me get this strait. You_are saying a top notch soldier, the best the
>US puts out, will not be able to defeat (unarmed?) a standard Israeli
freedom
>fighter? You are a complete idiot and you have no idea what you are
>talking about.
Hmmm......Israeli freedom fighter ? Don't you mean one of the Israeli army's
top notch elite troops. Why should Israel have freedom fighters ? They are
free already you dumb fucker. Maybe you mean Palestinian ?
>
>> Yes, and if the same was done in the 1700s, you would be living in the
>> British States of America.
>
>It was. Remeber the Revolutionary war? You hapless tea-drinking tired
>sons of an old monarchy fought like cowards, walked stupidly through
>the valleys as scores of them were killed by American soldiers.
>
>US - first in combat!
>
>> Wars are seldomly fought under ideal conditions. The army that looks
>> best on paper doesn't always win. There are other considerations that
>> play a role.
>
>Like your mother being sent.
>
>> Yes, and the American revolutionaries weren't?
>
>OH yes they were. They bagged a lot of Brits.
>
>
>> Has this something to do with the sorry condition many blacks have to
>> live in, in the United States.
>
>Don't put that on us! You are the ones who started slavery in the first
place!
>
>A young black man is far more likely to
>> end up in jail or die prematurely than to get a college degree. The
>> State of California spends far more on it's prison system than on
>> their education system.
>
>I agree. They should just shoot them all.
>
>> American universities are the best in the world, but many highschools
>> are in an educational crisis, with standards slipping continously.
>
>I thought England's universities were the best. Isn't Harvard or Yale the
best?
>
>> How about fixing that, before funding the next military mega-project?
>
>Tell that to that draft dodger we have up at the White House. He makes
>this country look like a nation run by 5 year olds who are just discovering
>humanitarianism.
>
>> It will probably be a while before the next great war will happen, but
>> every year more of your young people graduate from high school with
>> inefficient credentials or don't graduate at all.
>>
>> Get your priorities straight, bubba!
>
>I really wish someone would sock him. >= O
>
>Louis.
James Johnson
LordHaHa, a pilot in the Imperial Escort Squadron Tiger shot down a Calamari
Criuser commanded by ADM <6joutp$rl0$1...@apple.news.easynet.net> on May 18th,
1998...
>>> >They weren't trained, they know little of what even the our grunt's
>know.
>>>
>>> a BigMac,
>>
>>No! Enlighten me! ; )
>>
>>OH better not. I eat fast already.
>
>You really surprise me. I'm sure you are quite capable of stuffing burgers
>into your fat mouth very quickly indeed, you overweight, greasy retarded
>yank tosser. Why don't you try some real nutritious food for a change ?
COME ON, ALREADY!! This is the United States of America! Burgers, Fries, Hot
Dogs, Pizza, etc., etc.,... are the only food anybody ever eats around here!
Why the hell do you think we have so many fat people here?! Even if Louis is
fat, there a 8 million people in the US ALONE that are fat too. There's a
good chance that some regulars on this group are fat, so why don't you shout
at them, too! (by the by, i'm not 'very' fat. I'm just pudgy :) )
>>but they did know how to fight for the chance to shape their
>>> own destiny. I wouldn't dis the old Haganah and Irgun fighters in
>>> their face even today in their own age. They're a mean bunch, hardened
>>> by the horrors of the death camps and the Arab-Israeli wars.
>>
>>Yes, but you don't get it that Training is also a key figure in someone's
>>survivability. Any SAS member will tell you that. Experiance is great, but
>>training is the real deciding factor.
>>
>>> >Still they aren't. If you put one of our NAVY SEALS next to a top
>Israeli
>>> >soldier, with no weapons, the Navy Seal would win.
>>
Hmm....now that's THREE people that want to get rid of Bubba (i'm one of
them ;) )
>>Louis.
>
>
LordHaHa
Alasdair Allan
Martin Kjellstrand <mart...@remove.oc.chalmers.se> wrote in article
<martinkj-180...@palladium.oc.chalmers.se>...
>
> > Simple Darwinian evolutionary theory can be applied to the situation.
> > If you survive one military encounter, you're more likely to survive
> > another. All the training in the world isn't going to help if it's
> > useless, is it?
>
> This statement shows your total ignorance of evolutionary theory,
> Darwinian or other.
You really are half-witted. That has been a basis for the way armies have
fought since the Romans.
--
Cheers,
Alasdair Allan
Rangers Webzine - http://www.x-static.demon.co.uk/rangers
England - Country where Marx developed the basis of Communism
Scotland - Country where Smith developed the basis of Capitalism
ADM
James Johnson spewed the following meaningless drivel in message
<35604...@news.cyberlynk.net>...
>LordHaHa, a pilot in the Imperial Escort Squadron Tiger shot down a
Calamari
>Criuser commanded by ADM <6joutp$rl0$1...@apple.news.easynet.net> on May 18th,
>1998...
>>>> Oh!really, I s'pose they don't know what the fastest way is to devour
>>>> a BigMac,
>>>
>>>No! Enlighten me! ; )
>>>
>>>OH better not. I eat fast already.
>>
>>You really surprise me. I'm sure you are quite capable of stuffing burgers
>>into your fat mouth very quickly indeed, you overweight, greasy retarded
>>yank tosser. Why don't you try some real nutritious food for a change ?
>
>
>COME ON, ALREADY!! This is the United States of America! Burgers, Fries,
Hot
>Dogs, Pizza, etc., etc.,... are the only food anybody ever eats around
here!
>Why the hell do you think we have so many fat people here?! Even if Louis
is
>fat, there a 8 million people in the US ALONE that are fat too. There's a
>good chance that some regulars on this group are fat, so why don't you
shout
>at them, too! (by the by, i'm not 'very' fat. I'm just pudgy :) )
8 million - come on - it's more like 70 million. The last figures I recall
said that something like 25% of all americans were overweight. Overweight,
overzealous, overbearing - and unfortunately over here far too damm often.
Still - at least if they all eat too much they run the risk of dying young.
Alasdair Allan
Louis J.M <Kint...@Mediaone.net> wrote in article
<01bd81af$bcdcf8a0$1128...@pompano.net.pompano.net>...
Shite, another of those Froggie speaking cunts.
Go away until you learn to speak a *decent* language, Frog scum.
Alasdair Allan
James Johnson <hu...@inetsurfer.net> wrote
> ADM <6joutp$rl0$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>
burgers
> >into your fat mouth very quickly indeed, you overweight, greasy retarded
> >yank tosser. Why don't you try some real nutritious food for a change ?
>
>
> COME ON, ALREADY!! This is the United States of America! Burgers, Fries,
Hot
> Dogs, Pizza, etc., etc.,... are the only food anybody ever eats around
here!
> Why the hell do you think we have so many fat people here?! Even if Louis
is
> fat, there a 8 million people in the US ALONE that are fat too. There's a
> good chance that some regulars on this group are fat, so why don't you
shout
> at them, too! (by the by, i'm not 'very' fat. I'm just pudgy :) )
Your statistics are wrong. The problem with Septic's is not that you have
*some* fat people but that the majority of your population are fat and, in
fact, well over one third of your population are medically obese. Thats 90
million clinically obese fuckers.