Typhoid

we had "Arnold" when I was flying the E-4B. #787 was a bit of a "pig" for awhile when it first came back from rework. So we nicknamed it "Arnold". but the 55th maintainers did a good job bringing it back up to speed and it became a matter of pride. I think in the end I logged more time in Arnold than I did in the other planes. true story

sigh............. I could say something like "that's not what she said" but I'll try to restrain myself...... just to put this semi back on track - its a new, big bomb to hit a limited target set that cannot otherwise be hit. Posted here as an item of interest and for the modelers to take a look at adding to the next weapons pack. it hits targets that cannot be hit without otherwise using nuclear weapons at the sub-kiloton level that can dig deep to hit those hardened targes or by using concrete "rods from God". Neither of those other options presently exists and do to a number of factors are not likely to be fielded anytime soon, if ever. In particular, the use of conventional ICBMs to launch a weapon that will alert every missile warning network in the world of a strategic launch is particularly problematic, not to mention the level of discussion that the mere mention of a nuclear warhead - however small and contained - might and has started. As a previous operational planner who once was in the nuclear business (been there, done that and got the glow-in-the-dark T-shirt), any other option than a nuclear one is highly desirable. Relying on a weapon that we all know we will never be able to use, or want to for that matter, causes a lot of problem when trying to develop a viable operational campaign plan. and were there targets that would have mattered in Iraq and other "interesting places yet to be investigated" - absolutely. We could not hit a number of targets effectively until troops on the ground went down into the tunnels. That doesnt' work well in an operation short of invasion.

you've never heard of tactical nuclear weapons?

well, when I say "we" it refers to the real Air Order of Battle as we faced each other down. And while the Russian equipment wasn't all that great, all those Mig-23's at 6 to 1 were also carrying their own missile loadouts, which weren't half bad. In the sim its another matter although if you are flying over a dozen SA-6 sites along with the recent missile mods for the Russian AA stuff loaded up, you might start to get a better feel for what we faced back then. glad we didn't really have to find out........ glad a couple of them missed me too

concur. We considered it roughly comparable to the F-4, though not as good a turn capability. We made the assumption that the overall tactic was to throw more Mig-23's at us than we could put missiles in the air.

in limited circumstances a capability to reach and destroy a deeply buried, hardened structure is a shortfall that we have. In the Iraq war, yes, we could not destroy any of the hardened bunkers. We could only destroy the surface facilities. In several other countries, deeply buried and hardened facilities are used to protect critcal assets including nuclear armed ballistic missiles, command bunkers, nuclear research and production facilities, etc. finding them is hard enough. Killing them in many cases is impossible. if you accept that we have a military for the purpose of waging war when necessary against potential enemies that sometimes use deeply buried facilities to protect critical assetts, you need to address the issue of placing those assetts "at risk". At the present time, there are only two approaches, neither of which is available at present, to destroy such targets without stepping up to strategic nuclear weapons with massive and widespread destruction. those two means are using conventional ICBMs dropping "rods from God" concrete enclosed steel rods to impart focused kinetic energy sufficient to reach down and get them or, a penetrator with a sub-kiloton or one kiloton warhead to impart sufficient shock energy into the ground structure to destroy the target. the 30,000lb penetrator is the obvious attempt to find another means to do that without going to those rather extreme steps. My issue with the week-kneed Congress is that when we are down to about 10% of the nuclear capabilities we once had, the idea of building a handfull of modern, sub-kiloton weapons is somehow beyond consideration.

we expected them to come in a "slashing attack" and run like hell out the other side - followed by the next pair. Also a section of 4 would come in with two doing a "hook" out to one side so a combined multi-axis in fast and out the other side with our wreckage falling across the country side. Didn't quite work out that way for them...............

true enough, only a few and mostly used as AEW platforms. the parts is a serious problem, which leads back full circle to the start which is why the retired Tomcats are being shredded - to ensure no spare parts end up on the black market to Iran.

against the increasingly protected, deep bunker type construction - no. What they really need is the nuclear penetrator - but our weak-kneed Congress killed that program.

hope so. Looking forward to flying that one. The point is very well taken that chopping down all the forests and planting ethanol crops is bad by itself, but CO2 has nothing to do with it all. I don't know if the following article is "peer reviewed", probably just a letter to the editor, but by a PhD in the field. "When Physics Trumps Hysteria in Global Warming -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. July 18, 2007 Studiously hidden from public view are some extraordinary findings in physics which are providing new understanding of our planetary history, as well as providing a much more plausible scientific understanding of global warming. Regrettably, the current hysteria about global warming is based much more on fear, political agendas, and computer models that don’t agree with each other or the climate, rather than hard-nosed evidence and science. The climate forces which have led to the estimated 0.6C degree temperature increase over the past 100 years or more (according to the International Panel on Climate Change) have been assumed to be man-made CO2 emissions from advanced nations including the U.S. We know this can’t be true for several reasons. The first is that water vapor provides 95 percent of the total of the greenhouse gases, not CO2. The total of the CO2 represents less than 3 percent of the total. The second is that of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory, the manmade fraction is less than 3 percent of the CO2 total and therefore far less than 1 percent of the total greenhouse gas inventories. Third, studies of the recent climate variations are finding, for example, (See article by J. Oestermans, Science, p. 375, April 29, 2005) that glaciers have been receding since 1750 or so, well before any significant man-made CO2 emissions occurred. The mid 1700s were at the very depths of the Little Ice Age, which we have learned was the coldest climate over the last 5000 years. Obviously, other warming forces were at work before humans had anything to do with it. It seems more logical that natural forces are still at work with warming and cooling our climate. For example, Fred Singer and Dennis Avery pointed out in their book Unstoppable Global Warming that over the past 1,000,000 years in climate observations, there have been about 600 periods of warming, and we can surmise from these cycles that among them are about 599 periods of cooling. Now we have learned much more based upon observations of cosmic radiation, their sources, and the Sun’s magnetic fields, combined and new discoveries in the laboratory. A new and more comprehensive understanding of our planetary environment has emerged. This gives us a scientifically defensible explanation of both global warming and cooling. As the Oesterman study of the 250 years of receding glaciers shows, warming preceded the CO2 increases of the 20th century. That is, man-made CO2 was not significantly involved in this 200 year warming period on the earth. Nor does man-made CO2 explain those 600 periods of warming over the past 1,000,000 years. We have known that cosmic radiation is a source of very powerful radiation, more powerful than any in those huge manmade accelerators. We also know that the more energetic cosmic rays can reach the surface of the Earth passing completely through the atmosphere. Those of lesser energy can collide with molecules in the air causing an avalanche of nuclear and particle fragments as they pass through the atmosphere. The energy is dispersed in showers of these particles while still in the atmosphere. These collisions are truly nuclear in nature, highly energetic, and take place in our atmosphere every second. These are the nuclear processes by which the atmosphere acts as a protective shield to inhabitants on the earth. These are well known to airline safety experts, as well as to those astronauts who spend weeks and months outside of our protective atmosphere. The streams of cosmic radiation originate from deep space sources both within our galaxy, the Milky Way, as well as from galaxies more distant. Most of the cosmic rays are charged particles (mostly protons) but less prevalent heavier particles are often measured too, and can be of enormous energy. Being charged particles they can be deflected and modulated by the many magnetic fields found in space. In the proximity of our Sun and the solar system incoming particles “feel” the magnetic field of the Sun and are deflected. The extent of the deflection depends upon the strength of the magnetic field of the Sun. The solar magnetic field has been known, studied, and measured for only a few decades. As with other stars, the Sun is able to deflect many, but not all, of these particles of cosmic radiation away from our solar system and our planet according to well-known rules of physics and magnetism. Thanks to some recent excellent experimental work in physics by those such as Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, we now know that cosmic rays and some of the debris from nuclear collisions with atoms in the atmosphere are directly involved with the initiating mechanisms of cloud formation. Basically, the more cosmic rays, the more clouds are formed and the cooler the temperature. Since many of the cosmic rays can be deflected by the Sun’s magnet field, the cosmic ray intensity varies inversely with the strength of that field. The stronger the solar magnetic field, the fewer cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, fewer clouds are formed, and the climate becomes warmer. Today the Sun’s magnetic field is more than twice as strong as it was at the turn of the last century. During the mid 1700s during the Little Ice Age there was a 70 year period when there were no sunspots (called the Maunder Minimum), and the solar magnetic field was very weak. The cosmic rays were not deflected as much by a weakened solar magnetic field, more clouds were formed, thus a cooler climate at that time. These findings provide a simple plausible explanation, defensible with sound physics, and don’t involve a major role for CO2 at all. Some of the materials formed in the atmosphere by the cosmic ray collisions are radioactive as well, and are one of many natural sources of radioactivity. These are deposited in the Earth’s surface, and are used to construct a very accurate history of the geology and climate millions of years ago. It can be measured with surprising accuracy. In this instance some important collision products formed in the upper atmosphere, are carbon-14 (C-14) and berrylium-10 (Be-10). Being radioactive they decay into non-radioactive products. These have accurately known periods of decay and scientists can measure these materials in both ice cores and geologic cores samples. The amounts measured are directly related to many important natural features. Variations in both C-14 and Be-10 can be used to deduce the historical record of variations in the solar magnetic field. By similar techniques the scientists are able to determine variations in the cosmic radiation rates directly, going back hundreds of millions of years. Since the rate of influx of cosmic rays over time has not been constant, our climate has not been constant either. What lies ahead are some exciting times in climate physics and our understanding of the environment. Unexplained findings in geological and climate histories are now being explained by these new lines of inquiry. It appears that the Sun’s magnetic field has had a stronger effect on our climate than just the variations in solar irradiance could explain. Political leaders, environmental advocates, and even Oscar-winning documentarians who claim that “the debate of climate science is over”, have been shown once again to be very wrong. Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. "

"However, the pilot sits quite tall in the cockpit and biggest obstruction is toward the rear and forward downwards (the nose cone)." not what I remember. I'm average height and sitting in the cockpit, I could not see very well over the nose or looking aft. The seat sat fairly low. The panel eats up a lot of visibility. Visibility to the sides and over were good of course. I remember thinking that I was glad I didn't have to try to land that beast. And you all are quite welcome and thanks for your thanks. It was my honor to serve. The Sidra engagement was certainly a highlight, and I added 18 SCUD engagements during the Gulf War.

"once we run out of oil, we might as well be living in 1800 again if we haven't switched to alternative fuels. It's not a left/right political issue to bicker over, its a survival issue. If we have to bicker over it, at least bicker over how we're supposed to be solving the problem." reasonable conservation measures, expand nuclear power production, massive expansion of oil exploration and drilling in off-shore, Anwar, etc., colonization and exploitation of Iranian oil fields.......... the last point provides some opportunities for some Wings Over the Middle East campaign scenarios!!!!

that matches with what I saw. What struck me was the incredibly low-tech instrumentation and very poor visibility from the cockpit. It was at least a generation behind our stuff, and I was flying the oldest version of our stuff (we called ourselves in Carrier Air Wing Five the Antique Flying Club of Westpac). Had it gone hot, it would have been a slaughter. Our primary concern would have been all the falling Soviet debris...........(and papercuts from filling out all of the after-action paperwork) the engagement that I referred to above was the second Gulf of Sidra incident. I was the Flag TAO for the 6th Fleet Commander. Exciting morning......

primarily the E-2 and E-4B. Also had time in the TA-4J, P-3C, S-2F, T-2B, T-39D, E-3 (NATO and USAF), T-34B, KA-6D, Cessna 150 & 172, Piper 140, 180 and 200, Bonanza, Arrow II and Seneca. now I just fly a desk.......

yea, pretty much the details. But we strong-armed the Shah and cleared the way for the Ayatollah to return from exile and kick off the revolution. The revolution did not catch any of our intell services off-gaurd (well, maybe the CIA bufoons), only carter and his vacuous cronies.

besides helping to shoot two down, I was in a Mig-23 cockpit at a time and place that shall remain nameless. I did not fly it. the program was recently declassified - Constant Peg

you mean like this? this is a little nicer than the one I was in.

what's wrong with the one that came with it?

I'm still kind of partial to the F-14A+ and F-14D.........

because they weren't our enemy at the time. The Tomcats were sold to the Shah of Iran, along with a whole grunch of first line stuff including a pretty nice Spruance DDG variant. The Shah was our guy and a counter to Soviet penetration of the Persian Gulf region. And the Shah was not constrained by mere money in his military purchases. then carter took over and handed the Shah over to the tender mercies of the Ayatollah. While the Shah escaped, most of his military were turned into firing squad fodder. and the rest, as they say, is history.

so far, the beta runs great on a WoE install.

http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/vampire.html

I provided you several links already, all of it peer-reviewed. If you want a case study of discredited pseudoscientific claims, just look at all of this CO2 hysteria in about 10 years. If you just finished a course (for college credit?!!) try applying those lessons to this subject from the other side of the on-going debate and see if Anthropogenic Global Warming holds up. In all too many cases, it does not because generally the self-selected studies and peer reviewers are too inbred for real review. Most of the time, the study will be on a single factor without historical correlation, taken over a limited time frame to provide a pre-ordained result, etc. Your "pre-eminent" Science magazine is wholly one-sided and does not cover any opposing views - hardly a scientific approach, rather a purely political agenda driven approach. But for the truly intellectually enabled researcher; http://climatesci.colorado.edu/ http://www.icecap.us/ http://friendsofscience.org/ http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm http://www.nrsp.com/people-timothy-ball.html http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...=&Issue_id= http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html sort of a level two of sites which reference scientific studies; http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ http://www.climatepolice.com/ http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html http://www.agu.org/history/SV.shtml what is absolutely clear from all of this is that there IS NOT a "consensus" on the issue and the science IS NOT settled in favor of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It is, more accurately, Global Conning in support of a political agenda and to make big bucks through phony carbon trading companies. That is all it is. With the continuing decline of solar activity going into what may be a signficant solar minimum - these frauds will be thoroughly discredited within a decade. this link is a scientific rebuttal of Dr Hansen's (and Algore's) testimony to Congress; http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...onyCritique.pdf and - if you don't like "oil company financed" studies then you shouldn't be listening to Al Gore either; http://www.generationim.com/media/pdf-gene...se-08-11-04.pdf

its also very evident that the editor is an Anthropogenic Global Warming Advocate of the First Order. So to emphasize my point, it is just one source and a biased one at that. I have pointed out several links to other sources. What is absolutely clear from those other links is that there is a very definite scientific DEBATE on the issue. The science is not settled, no where even close. and by the by, the global temperatures as measured by NOAA satellites indicate that no net warming since 1998 has occured and we have already leveled off in the temperature. And how many devastating hurricanes have hit the US half way through this hurricane season? none..... here's another link http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2005/may_19b_05.htm and a graph of global temperature over time. Of note - the graph shows ups and downs inconsistent with CO2 forced warming and distinct, recent decline. hmmm.....................

and mobile SCUD launchers with fuel convoys to hunt down? (during the fight we would pass SCUD launch locations to the SCUD Hunters (A-6E and F-15E, not to mention Special Ops dudes). Post war analysis determined we never caught any. :( )