Re: Does ANY audio mag use DBT?

On May 10, 11:11=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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]
>=
 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "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=
 from your mouth?
>
> > > > > > > > > > People like GOIA and 2pid suffer no embarassment when
th=
ey are proven
> > > > > > > > > > dead-wrong.
>
> > > > > > > > > Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.
>
> > > > > > > > You have, for example, underwhelmed me with your military
'e=
xpertise'.
>
> > > > > > > Still waiting to know how we'll get a 1000 =A0F-16s over the
T=
aiwan
> > > > > > > straits.
>
> > > > > > Still wondering if we would declare all-out war on the Chinese
g=
oing
> > > > > > against all of our published policies.
>
> > > > > > This (of course) begs the question of how we'd these aircraft
th=
ere,
>
> > > > > =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
airc=
raft
> > > > > > 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. =A0We need technical superiority.

We cannot get the technically-superior aircraft to the battlefield any
easier than any other one, and (according to the USAF and the study
you provided) we still need large numbers of other aircraft to do the
killing.

Do you know what was in mind when the F-22 was initially conceived,
2pid? The Cold War:

"The Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program had its origins in
numerous US Air Force air combat studies carried out in the late 1970s
and early 1980s, when intelligence revealed the Soviets' early flight
testing of the Fulcrum and Flanker. From the observed geometry of the
airframes it was clear that both types would have the vortex lift
performance to challenge existing US aircraft such as the F-15 in
turning dogfights. Hoever, both Soviet fighters would be handicapped
by their geometry in both supersonic maneuver and low observability
performance."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-history.htm

In case you haven't read about it, the Cold War is over. It was in all
the newspapers.

> And..as you pointed out, Chinese manufacturing capacity is
> growing rapidly. =A0They already match us in numbers
> and soon will in technology if we stand still.

If we can't fear Communism, we have to fear something. Is China the
new thing we must fear in order to justify spending more than the rest
of the world combined? You conservatives are like a bunch of
frightened old ladies.

Here's a hint, 2pid: we can be technologically-superior to the Chinese
all that we want. If they want to arm a few hundred million soldiers,
which they could do and we couldn't, we can mass all of our M-1 tanks,
and all of NATO's Leopard IIs, and all the F-22 Raptors, and still
lose.

> > 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.
>
> =A0How useful is an F-16 in Sadr City?
> =A0Why not go back to A-10s?

If you'll recall, I said exactly that during the initial 'discussion'.
I also advocated more AH-64 longbows, which are even more appropriate.
We used up $200 billion develpping and fielding about 200 aircraft.

I'm glad you finally caught up. ;-)

> > But then again, you advocated that we start developing yet another
> > generation of fighter now, showing how far up your ass your head
> > is. ;-)
>
> =A0 You're not going to generate the next generation fighter via
> startup companies. =A0We nearly need to go off shore to get
> the tanker we want today. =A0If 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.

You're exactly the type of person Eisenhower had in mind when he
issued his famous (and prescient) warning.

Now go back to your kennel.