JediMaster

I have every Pixar film on DVD, love them all!

From what I've heard, these missiles use INS guidance to get a point where their IR seeker would be able to pick up the target, then switch and start searching. Some could use datalink updates ala AMRAAM/Phoenix, but I'm not sure if any do. The only problem is target designation in any LOAL scenario is iffy. Say for example you have a transport escorted by fighters at close range and launch an IR missile BVR without a datalink. You fire the missile at the transport and it flies 2/3 of the distance or whatever based on INS measurements which put it where it would see the target IF the target has continued without changing speed/course since launch. It then switches to the IR seeker. What will it do? If the group has altered speed/course enough, it may not see anything! It may only see one of the escort fighters, and lock onto that. If it sees more than one target, what will it do? Go for the one closest to the center (assuming that is the correct target)? Go for the strongest target return (assuming weaker might be countermeasures)? Years ago I remember having to deal with this a lot in MPS' F-19 Stealth Fighter. It let you carry AMRAAMs, but you had no radar. Unless you fired so close that the radar switched on as it left the bay, it had to fly for quite a ways without any radar datalink. I sometimes had a mission where I was to shoot down a transport but NOT the escorting fighters. It was a "covert mission" and I was to ONLY destroy the target. Many a time the AMRAAM would lock onto an escort instead of the transport just because of how the formation would be when the radar went active.

Could be a good Bond villain. "Cupcake McDeath."

No, what I mean is camo should be tailored to prevent sighting from the ground as opposed to air-air sightings because that's where the majority of combat losses have come from since the end of Vietnam. How many A-10s have had to evade a MiG? How many A-6s? Now how many of those have had to evade AAA and SAMs? Seems worrying about an enemy fighter getting a visual on you is secondary for now, at least until we see a conflict where the enemy has a significant fighter presence. When that happens, we can easily repaint them quick enough anyway.

Right, they were using planes 5+ yrs out of date pulled from storage, Nat'l Guard, Reserves, etc when they could've had relatively new Sierra Hotel piston uber planes if they hadn't said "Jets are the FEWTCHA!!" and dumped all the new prop designs.

Yes, a large network of schools and other welfare programs will certainly prevent invaders from attacking. I mean, just look at the insanely difficult time the Nazis had getting past the French school system. Do people have such short memories that they can't remember WWII?? A weak defense invites attacks from A) a country in a worse situation who is jealous/thinks they can get something out of it B) a country in a better situation that thinks they can get something/distract from problems at home C) jealous fundamentalist nutjobs that can't understand why THEIR way (which MUST be correct) hasn't given them as nice a life/culture/country as those who live a DIFFERENT way (which CAN'T be correct), so obviously their "god" thinks they must attack

News flash: Boston Colonials dumped large amounts of tea into the harbor overnight!

Maybe it's ice in a wedge spanning 62 degrees?

Maybe just call it a "Foster's"? Anyway, many very promising piston-engined planes were killed early or never even put into production because of the advent of the jet age. Of course, while everyone was assuming jets were the new best thing, it would really be another 10 years before they could do everything props could do at an equal or better level. Many great props could've been used in Korea if there hadn't been some overly optimistic calls made post-WWII.

It seems to me that the largest threat to most air vehicles has been and will continue to be ADA and SAMs. I don't think anti-air camo should really even be worried about to the same extent.

You've never heard of Moron AB in Spain? Seeing how much closer you are to it than I am I would think you WOULD know about it! The other one I know there is Zaragoza AB. Both are emergency shuttle landing facilities, not that they've ever been used for such a mission, fortunately.

I feel like I've been waiting for DCS for years. Oh wait, I have!

I believe it simply replaces the cockpit for that plane. You simply fly that one and you'll see it, there's no "choice" selection. Fly an MLU F-16 and you won't see it, but hop in any CJ and you will.

Let's face it, MK2 is a better person than most of us would be in the same situation.

People always say "prices are set at what the market can bear", but I think it's more "prices are set at what the companies can get away with."

The F-111's internal gun was mounted on the belly, very far back from the nose. Roughly where you see that pod in the image. However, the ones that had it pretty much never used it and many models didn't have it. Standard M61A1, AFAIK.

Sorry, where you see similarity I see a BIG difference. Show me the whacko who can kill 30 people in a room with a sword in 10 seconds that's NOT a major action film star with a team of stunt men and effects guys behind him. The difference is the time factor. Yeah, using an old flintlock rifle one guy COULD kill a classroom...eventually. A pistol, a rifle, a shotgun, a crossbow, all have significantly slower rates of fire, which limits the number of targets you can attack with the element of surprise. "Mass murder is mass murder," yes, but if you think killing 30 people in 10 seconds is no different from taking 10 hours, well, perhaps you need a better clock. If it doesn't matter, then why exactly did the Gatling gun get invented? Why was the machine gun invented? By your logic, pistols and rifles are all that is needed, so why do our troops carry M16s and M4s and not M1s still? I mean, there's no difference! Also, you have TOTALLY misjudged my attitude with your 2nd paragraph. My train of thought had NOTHING to do with the first amendment or anything like that, in fact, your MAJOR mistake was very simple: You ASSUMED my statement means I am anti-2nd Amendment. Apparently I either think EXACTLY like you, or I must think EXACTLY opposite you, correct? I guess unlike, oh, EVERY other law ever written, there is only black and white here? Since I questioned this one, I must therefore question them all, right? I also can't question it and support it at the same time, can I? I must not believe in ANYTHING that a "rational person" (as if this underhanded attempt to call me irrational isn't noticed) believes in? WRONG. However, in your blind defense of it you see an attack where there isn't one, because you're frightened that you can't logically discuss the evolution of firearms without realizing that there IS a point I'm making, a point you under no circumstances wish to concede. So, if you don't want to go there for fear that your belief in the 2nd Amendment might be questioned (because after all no slave-owning land-holding aristocrat from the 18th century could POSSIBLY have failed to take into account a development they could not foresee over 100 years later, they are all infallible, of course), just don't and stay the hell away. The "rational person" realizes that informed questioning is preferable to blind acceptance and attacking of the questioners. The "rational person" realizes that questioning does not undermine anything if it is truly correct and can only strengthen it by disproving doubts. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD YOU EVER PRESUME TO TELL ME WHAT I BELIEVE WHEN YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA. EVER.

No, the B-1B and B-2A were both replacements for the B-52. The problem is we didn't buy enough of either to make retiring them attractive. The B-1B was only supposed to be interim until the B-2A anyway, yet we sent a significant amount into storage so we could afford to upgrade the ones we kept in service. As for the B-2A, no doubt we seriously bought too few of those. Yet no one wanted to pay for anything in the 90s...

I don't know how effective it will be on aircraft, but one thing I can guarantee...it will look uglier, just like the uniforms!

...enter "the cloaking device."

Like it really matters where they're stored...you can get them anywhere on the planet in hours anyway.

Just one!

[Austin Powers] Groovy, baby! Does that paint scheme make you horny? [/Austin Powers]

One problem is at the time our country was founded, neither machine guns nor the concept of mass murder/suicides existed. The idea that someone would strap a bomb to themselves and blow up dozens of innocents and themselves to make a point, without caring about living afterwards? So remote as to not be worth considering...who would do that? People who now take several guns and go into a crowded area and open up with no intention of surviving or of killing themselves at the end is another "far fetched" idea. There is no defense against this at all. If everyone in that crowd is armed, the crazy will still have the element of surprise and end up dead at the end. Maybe a few less bystanders are shot, depending on reaction times, but that's it. Things like the VT shootings could not have happened in the 18th century. Yeah, modern tech is SOOO great.

My favorite was the ST one about the red shirt dying. That and the one that said "Spock's Brain--because they can't all be City on the Edge of Forever."