Re: Does ANY audio mag use DBT?

On May 10, 1:01=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 10, 2:32=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 12:14=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On May 10, 11:16=A0am, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 9, 6:33=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > On May 9, 6:21=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 9, 3:06=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > On May 9, 3:50=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 9, 10:42=A0am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > > > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On May 9, 7:07=A0am, "TT" <TTencerNoS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
w=
rote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > > > >news:yZKdnST58J6IpLnVnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > > > > > > > > I'm glad you're online, how's my apology coming?
>
> > > > > > > > > > BTW was it painful when you had both your feet removed
f=
rom your mouth?
>
> > > > > > > > > People like GOIA and 2pid suffer no embarassment when
they=
 are proven
> > > > > > > > > dead-wrong.
>
> > > > > > > > Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.
>
> > > > > > > You have, for example, underwhelmed me with your military
'exp=
ertise'.
>
> > > > > > Still waiting to know how we'll get a 1000 =A0F-16s over the
Tai=
wan
> > > > > > straits.
>
> > > > > Still wondering if we would declare all-out war on the Chinese
goi=
ng
> > > > > against all of our published policies.
>
> > > > > This (of course) begs the question of how we'd these aircraft
ther=
e,
>
> > > > =A0 I suspect it was you who conveyed our sentiments to Sadam
> > > > on his plans for Kuwait.
>
> > > > > since according the the USAF they're what shoots down enemy
aircra=
ft
> > > > > even WITH the F-22.
>
> > > > =A0But 1000s aren't required with the F-22.
> > > > Why do these simple little dots all lined up in a tidy little
> > > > row remain disconnected in your silly little brain?
>
> > > Go back and reread the study that you posted, 2pid. That's exactly
> > > what the USAF said. The F-22 can *track* a large amount of aircraft
> > > but cannot *attack* them. It "increases the efficiency" of current
> > > aircraft. You still need all of those other aircraft, 2pid, at least
> > > according to the USAF study that *you* posted.
>
> > =A0But not nearly as many as without the F-22...
> > a position you advocate which is not feasible as you won't be
> > able to get that many aircraft to the battlefield in question.
>
> So we come full-circle: we have spent well over $200 to develop an
> aircraft for one unlikely scenario. That was the question you were
> asked. You never did come up with another scenario, even granting this
> unlikely one, which requires it.
>
> Yap yap yap.
>
> > > Duh.
>
> > > An F-22 can carry a maximum of eight air-to-air missiles. We have
> > > about 200 F-22s. Whether we will get any more is in doubt for now.
> > > That's 1600 air-to-air missiles, assuming all 200 aircraft are on
> > > station during the attack, which is not likely, and assuming a 100%
> > > kill ratio, again not very likely.
>
> > =A0 Your position started out...the enemy has no answer for the F-16.
>
> No, it was that an F-16 is entirely capable against the aircraft we
> are likely to face. There's a difference.
>
> > When that was thoroughly debunked you
>
> That hasn't been. Don't forget the majority of the teeming hordes of
> Chinese aircraft are primarily of Korean war vintage. MiG-17s and the
> like.
>
> > morphed into the enemy has no answer for 1000 F-16s ignoring that
> > we can't get 1000 F-16s to the battlefield, but with a combination
> > of F-16s and F-22s a much smaller number of aircraft is a
> > significantly
> > more credible deterrent.
>
> For a very unlikely scenario.
>
> The argument I made, and which you are too dumb to see (still), is
> that it would be better to have five times as many F-16s over fewer
> F-22s.

I does no good to have a bunch of planes you can't get to the
battle field.  We need technical superiority.
And..as you pointed out, Chinese manufacturing capacity is
growing rapidly.  They already match us in numbers
and soon will in technology if we stand still.

> We are no longer in the cold war. It is far more likely that we
> will be confronted with several smaller conflicts rather than one
> large one.

 How useful is an F-16 in Sadr City?
 Why not go back to A-10s?

>
> But then again, you advocated that we start developing yet another
> generation of fighter now, showing how far up your ass your head
> is. ;-)

  You're not going to generate the next generation fighter via
startup companies.  We nearly need to go off shore to get
the tanker we want today.  If you don't keep enough work in the R&D
pipeline, there will be no competent US supplier to respond to
the next fighter RFP.

ScottW