Typhoid

I think they also did the "tank plinking" where they went out with an IR pod to locate the tanks dug into the sand, then dropped a guided bomb "down the hatch."

I throw myself on the mercy of the court :tomato2:

thanks but, I read the detailed tactics manuals and after-action reports from the Navy Fighter Weapons School. I'll stick with that.

the AIM-54C block7 was a souped up, very capable missile that was lightyears ahead of the original AIM-54A (the A also having been sold to Iran where it apparently racked up a 50% kill rate against Iraqi aircraft - which is actually quite good for a missile!) The C block7 had a lot of very advanced guidance and ECCM built into it and in testing handled multiple, maneuvering, fighter sized targets in an ECM environment very well. without going into details, we considered it a very credible threat against the Flanker and Fulcrum and the "no escape zone" for a Phoenix shot exceeded the range anything they could throw at us at the time. The only combat shot that I know of was against an Iraqi Foxbat which was trying to lure the Tomcats over a missile trap. The Tomcats declined to take that bait and heaved a pair of Phoenix at the "rapidly retreating" Foxbat, which in a tail chase at Mach2+ the Phoenix couldn't catch. Beyond that, the ROE generally prohibited employment of the Phoenix which was particularly the case in the Gulf War when Gen Horner very explicitly prohibited the USN from using it and forced the Tomcats to be stationed out of the fight. so I wouldn't denigrate the Phoenix so much.

rather than rebuilding the Tomcat - build a new, stealth fighter that is carrier capable. kinda like an F-22N maybe.......

I've been informed by another source that this is actually proves the CVN uploaded an extra charge into Katrina under the direct orders of Darth Cheney and relayed through the Stargate Command in Cheyenne Mountain......... where do these people come from?

I haven't heard that there is any problem with bring back. Their standard load for the SH is three JDAMs and tanks, and they hit USAF tankers for endurance and range.

not to mention the maintenance per flight hour which the Tomcat was horrendous on. Great plane - when it actually got into the air....... As a frame of reference the Super Hornet maintenance manhours per flight hour is less than 10% of what the Tomcat was and the availability is more than double. At the war college this was a major item at the time because the decision was still on the table. It really boiled down to one major factor - cost. In order to run the production line to fill the decks with aircraft the USN needed more than would be available. The choice with a limited amount of funds projected and a rapidly crashing threat was to go down the lower cost route of the Hornet and consolidate aircraft types into fewer types covering the broad range of missions. The SH was the only solution that would not strip the decks of planes. Had we gone the Tomcat21 route - the decks would now be even emptier than the 2/3 deck load that they are now. Also bear in mind that the decision was made under Bush the Elder as part of an initial defense cutback with the decline of the Soviet Bear into nothing. What then happened under Clinton the Perjurer was an almost complete shutdown of defense acquisition across the board with Naval Aviation in particular being almost stripped. The Hornet was on life support for much of that period of time and survived simply because it was cheaper. So at the war college running the numbers and capabilities there was an overall feeling that we would loose in capabilities but gain in aircraft numbers. This broke the crowd into two camps - Tomcat supporters (including me) and Hornet advocates. The USN leadership weighed in and told everyone that cost drove the decision and to get on board. As time went on you could tell who the Tomcat supporters were because we all added "Ret." to our ranks.......... (just kidding!!!!) today we are pretty well served with the Super Hornet and USAF tankers to get them out to where they need to go. Joint air operations leveraging the best of all services is what has enabled us to put airpower on target wherever it needs to go, and the precision strike capabilities today are an order of magnitude better than they were just a decade ago, which itself was an order of magnitude greater than a decade before that.

"wherein I flattend Hanoi airfiled, and the various depots, army bases and rail yards. " wasn't that our objective once upon a time.......?

had a similar problem after an XP service pack upgrade. After discussing with TK, I ended up putting the two weapons editors into a director in my Program Files and going to them via the cmd line. Essentially, I open them with a dos command. Then they work fine. Haven't tried the zip file technique. That sounds interesting too. Perhaps one of these days the editors will be updated to work with XP and Vista...... in about two weeks.......

New at-sea refueling method for CVN's. carbon-free!

right! especially since they were not in the launch capsule!

Thanks for all the tips, gents! I'll check those out. Nesher, based on your recommendation I will take another look at that one. And all the others too. (of course, for an old Cold War Warrior like me to take the recommendation of "Soviet Commissar from the Ukranian Air Force......) Thanks again all.

I looked at that one. It makes a bit nervous though. I am getting paranoid about what I load up on my computer that goes out to the internet.......

that sounds like it will do the trick! in "two weeks"?

Dumb question but does anyone a good recommendation for a safe Download Manager? I have an intermittent wireless connection sometimes and downloads tend to get interupted sometimes.

Awesome!! My shipmates!!

we are obviously never going to agree on these things, so I'm not going to keep going back and forth. Enough already. Permit me before I go, however, to address one key point that you brought up. "The thing about ANWR is that oil companies have plenty of land leased where they could drill, but simply aren't. " do you understand the difference between a lease for exploration and a permit for production drilling? That statement is one of the propaganda points that pelosi and crowd are using and its simply an enormous, back-stabbing lie. Its been pelosi, reid and crowd who have blocked permits for drilling. One of the companies recently sold the lease back to the government because they simply could not afford to keep applying for drilling permits and have them continually denied. Its not an issue of having exploration leases. Its an issue of having drilling leases and the permits to do so. pelosi, reid and company have systematically blocked the Bush energy plan implementation, blocked drilling permits, blocked exploration, etc. We now have food and energy shortages as a result of liberal dnc policies. It is the Audacity of Mendacity to claim the current economic problems are a result of conservative policies when it has been obstructionist democrat tactics that have deliberately and with malice aforethought blocked energy development and converted food crops to fuel crops.

you're drifting pretty far from what I said. don't presume to know what my position is on some of these. I left off Warmonger Clinton (and his undeclared, illegal war and unnecessary wars) simply for brevity. But thanks for proving the opposite of your own point! there was a substantial difference from the Eisenhower Military Assistance team presence in Vietnam and the JFK escalation followed by the massive LBJ escalation. Trying to hang Vietnam on the Republicans or conservatives (many who actually opposed that) is yet another example of liberal historical revisionism. Nice try. energy and food is a whole other topic of which I have written quite a bit about and been published. Your side is dead wrong on those issues. For the record, I favor all kinds of energy development including alternative. I oppose government mandated percentages, restrictions and subsidies which has led directly to our current mess - thanks largely to the obstructionist Democrats and the non-conservative Republicans in Congress (including McCain by the way!). energy deregulation in California, for one glaring example, was deregulation in name only. It actually imposed severe market restrictions and government oversight on prices and supplies and was the direct cause of the energy meltdown there. fighting poverty is best accomplished by opening up opportunity, employment, business development, etc. Perpetual welfare and government dependency is a dead end both for the taxpayers who have to foot the bill and mostly for the new underclass sold into economic slavery of the government welfare system.

we called it Astor. Yep, dumped in favor of the Mk-48 and surface/air-dropped Mk-46, both of which are conventional. GREAT FLICK!!!!!

and completely ineffective!

HAHAHAHA!!!! Are you kidding?!! How did you ever fall for that?!! first a description of the migration of a liberal to conservatism; ----------------------------------- While I was visiting friends in Seattle last month and talking to their little girl, Catherine, she said she wanted to be President someday. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats were standing there with us and I asked Catherine, 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?' Catherine replied, 'I would give houses to all the homeless people.' 'Wow, what a worthy goal you have there, Catherine.' I told her, 'but you don't have to wait until you're President. You can start now by coming over to my house and cleaning up all the dog poop in my back yard and I will pay you $5 dollars. Then we can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $5 dollars to use for a new house.' Catherine (who is about 4) thought that over for a second, while her mom looked at me seething, and Catherine replied, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop and you can just pay him the $5 dollars?' 'Ah', I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party'. ----------------------------------------------------- now for your comments - "What tax bracket are you living in?" according to you guys, I'm rich. but somehow still qualify for financial aid to send my kids to school. Without any of the so-called "tax breaks" your guys promised but refused to deliver. "with the largest increase in spending in history. " and therein liesthe problem. runaway spending. Democrats spend like drunken sailors. Republicans when they achieved control of Congress also spent like drunken sailors and thereby lost the support of conservatives, and were then defeated by the Dems who proceeded to triple the runaway spending of the previous, Republican drunken sailors. Bush, to his everlasting discredit, failed to find his veto pen until he faced a Democrat Congress. But look at the promises made by the two parties - Republicans to scale back spending and Democrats to spend into oblivion. "We coupled the largest drop in revenue in history" ABSOLUTELY WRONG. That is not true. The only decline in revenue occured after 9/11 due to a business contraction caused by the attacks. Which also led to a substantial increase in defense spending. Surely you are not arguing against the need for that defense increase after the infamous defense gutting of the previous decade by the (ahem) previous regime? tax data through 2004 (looking for more recent data); http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls Here is an absolute truth that has been validated many times. Low tax rates stimulate business growth which stimulates employement, all of which increases tax revenue. JFK understood that, Reagan followed his lead, and Bush the Younger also followed that prescription although all he could achieve against the Obstructionist Democrats in Congress was a temporary tax rate reduction. The above table verifies that. Those tax reductions are about to expire and will result in the biggest tax increase in US history, which Obama has declared is not enough and will double. "The most expensive and needless war in history? conservatives." really? WWI - Wilson (which party again?) WWII - FDR (which party again?) Korea - Truman (which party again?) Vietnam - JFK and LBJ (which party again?) I presume you are trying to claim that the current war is both the most expensive war in history (absurd) and was needless (highly debateable and I shall avoid discussing that hot button further. Suffice it to say that substantial numbers of people do not agree with you, including almost the entire Senate at the time that voted for it) "The only time since the great depression we didn't create more jobs than we lost? conservatives." complete fiction without any substance in fact and utterly absurd. Job growth has been pretty solid with the exception of the 9/11 post-attack slump caused by those attacks and the reduction in air travel. THAT you cannot blame on conservatives. We had a business expansion under almost every administration except Carter. You need to read some facts rather than DNC propaganda. "Unprecedented divisivness? conservatives." nope - that was Clinton and has been raised to a new level by the DNC and the looney left. You hear very little personal attacks from conservatives. You hear nothing but from liberals. Tune into Air American and listen to that derangement - all hatred all the time. On the other side you hear mostly solid discussion on the issues rather than personal divisivness. That's a fact. "The failure to respond to the greatest humanitarian disaster inside the US? conservatives." I presume you mean Katrina. I will tell you absolutely, without any reservation (from my position within NORTHCOM at the time) that is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the American people. The utter failure in responsibilities was by the city, parish and state governments which had and have the primary responsibility for the safety of their populace - all Democrats. Their failure to meet their mandated responsibilities hampered federal and military efforts. The idiot press laid all of that onto the administration (and to be fair there were substantial shortfalls in certain areas) but failed utterly to hold the State and local offices to account. "But then again, I'm being unfair, what's being passed as conservative isn't conservative at all." certainly different levels just as there are liberals. The failures of the Republicans is not a failure in conservative principles at all. You've heard the term "RINO" - refers to non-conservative Republicans who, not surprisingly, have adopted liberal ideas and failed. as I have stated. Liberalism fails every time. rant off.....

oh, that. Other way around. I think you might be referring to the SSN-14 which was a rocket assisted torpedo. It left as a rocket and when near the target (submerged sub) it dropped a torpedo which could, but not always, be nuclear. they also had one (I forget the designation) that was launched through a torpedo tube from a submerged sub. We called ours Subroc

"we've had a long eight years of continuing reagan's policies, they haven't been working." no, we haven't had eight years of continuing Reagan policies. Reagan's policies worked magnificantly across the board. Neither Bush the Elder nor Bush the Younger held to Reagan's policies nor were either of them able to put their own policies through against a deranged, liberal DNC block in the Congress. In the last eight years in particular, the obstructionist tactics of the left in Congress have prevented any semblance of Reagan policies to be passed or kept to. The closest we've had has been the Bush tax cuts which were temporary and no where far enough. Those tax policies by the way, have worked just fine. Here is a news flash for you. Conservative principles, when applied and adhered to, work everytime, over time. Liberal policies have failed everywhere and whenever they've been tried. The only time they work is when they follow a conservative administration and are able to piggeyback/take credit for the results of the preceeding conservatives. Conservatives always have to clean up the mess the liberals cause. "As for money, well look at the broader picture of donors across several elections, the right has nothing to complain about." For donations that is correct. The point that you seem to have lost sight of is the media bias, try to stay on topic. The donations represent the "follow the money" that proves the overwhelming media bias against conservatives and explains the fawning, adoring press falling over themselves in orgasmic bliss of the liberal candidates. "I don't see how anyone can look arrogant in comparison to the bush gang." just run clips of pelosi, reid, clinton (both), kerry, kennedy (all except the deceased), algore the warmer, etc., etc., etc. There is nothing from that deranged crowd except arrogance, hatred and dripping condescension.

just another example of Obama's arrogance, disdain and media manipulation. turns out that Obama made the decision not to visit the wounded troops because he couldn't take his adoring fans (press corps) and political handlers (campaign staff) with him for a photo op. I've included the entire article which is Obama's staff (lame) response and bolded the key part. DOD spokesman says Obama camp was reminded of political rules [uPDATED] Chief Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed to Politico that Department of Defense officials cautioned Barack Obama's campaign that his planned visit to wounded American troops in Germany could not be political in nature and that he would be barred from bringing along campaign staff and reporters. He also said that Cindy McCain recently requested to visit sailors aboard the U.S.N.S. Comfort and was denied. "Sen. Obama is welcome to visit Landstuhl or any military hospital in his official capacity as a United States senator," Morrell said in a brief interview. "But there is a DOD policy which governs campaigning and electioneering at military facilities that would have to be respected if he were to visit. That distinction was relayed and made clear to campaign, and they made a decision on their own based on that guidance." Morrell, in a subsequent interview, added that military officials told Obama he could only visit the military facility with his Secret Service detail and Senate staff. "We made it clear to him that campaign staff and press would not be permitted to accompany him," Morrell said of Obama. "We relayed those ground rules. They made a choice based upon the information we relayed to them. It was their choice. We had nothing to do with it." Military personnel at Ramstein Air Force Base, where the senator was to fly into, had already made arrangements to accomodate Obama's traveling press pack and campaign staff while he visited the wounded troops, Morrell said. Obama's campaign tells a different story. Obama adviser David Axelrod told the Chicago Sun-Times that the Pentagon "viewed this as a campaign event, and therefore they said he should not come." In a briefing to Obama's traveling press corps, another adviser stopped short of saying they were told to not come but also suggested that even a visit by Obama alone may have been at issue. Robert Gibbs said one of Obama's military advisers had been informed by the Pentagon that the visit may be seen as a campaign stop. "They cited a regulation," Gibbs said of their point of contact, described as legislative affairs in the office of the secretary. "We believed that based on the information we received that any presence, even his own and only his own, would get into a back and forth on whether his own presence was a campaign event," Gibbs said. Gibbs also pointed out that that their plane had been cleared to land at Ramstein and the Pentagon subsequently issued the reminder about political activity at military posts. Obama, who was not traveling with any Senate staffers, decided on the flight Wednesday from Tel Aviv to Berlin not to visit the hospital. Trying to make clear that this was not an attempt to undercut the Democratic nominee, Morrell also noted that when McCain officials asked the Pentagon for permission to let Cindy McCain visit the massive U.S. hospital ship, the U.S.N.S. Comfort, the request was rejected. "Had she gone with Sen. McCain, it would have been OK," Morrell said, underlining the delineation between what are official and campaign activities.