Tanking isn’t as vulnerable a situation as you might think. It will take a tanker 3 and a half minutes to fully refuel two hornets … less if it is just a top up. They will be flying high enough to be safe from MANPADs. They will have other fighter aircraft and AWACs in the vicinity. In all probability they will be operating in reasonably secure airspace.

The F-18F also equipped for buddy refueling.

Right dead on. :rolleyes:

So I assume this 40km (by 20) piece of ground has been scorched to make sure that there are no pukka SAMs in the area?

Am I also to assume that the RAAF has predicted that its future combat operations will always occur over somewhere that they can dominate airspace to the extent neither SAMS or opposing aircraft can interfer in ‘sitting-duck’ operations?

So, just out of curiosity – do you know of any refuelling occuring over afghanistan itself in the first few weeks of combat? or Iraq?

I like how so many self proclaimed experts like Al Gore are so positive that we are headed for an extinction event for mankind in the near future. When meteorologist are educated for years in college and even after years of experience meteorologists cannot predict the weather two weeks away accurately. Yet Al Gore is such a genius he can predict catastrophic global warming decades away. Sometimes I think people like Al Gore have a God complex.

Longer term effects are easier to predict than short term ones computationally. Be like CFD – instead of having to run time dependant simulations, you lengthen the timestep alot and let it get a ‘steady-state’ solution.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

PMSL

And do you believe it to be the unvarnished truth? :rolleyes:

For one, quite a few of the ‘experts’ they had on the program used terms incorrectly – while some of you might say “so what”, I don’t know of one person where I am that would ever make that kind of mistake – particularly in their chosen field on a TV program. It just would not happen – period.

So that cast alot of doubt on the integrity of the show. I also thought some of the conclusions were derived from sketchy results very quickly – too quickly for my liking.

For instance, they talked about climate models predicting the troposphere would experience a larger rate of temperature increase than the ground, but actual figures are showing it isn’t.

They then (correctly in my view) extrapolated this to say CO2 increases are not causing the increase – so immediately jumped to the conclusion we (humans) are not responsible.

But, of course, the immediate question should have been – if the ground and atmosphere are not warming up in accordance with the model – why not? Indeed, they even said the troposphere was cooling in places. Again why?

I would theorise that the ground temperature is rising as a result of increased direct radiation from the sun – caused by a reduction in O3 (or gases of similar effect). Also, that the atmosphere is not experiencing the same rise as it has less resistance to the radiation, so it passes straight through (both ways, in and out) without causing any measurable effect (i.e. heating).

While they had a go at the IPCC for being corrupt, which it probably is, politicans are involved after all… they are not the only show in town so to speak, so why are countless other journals and conferences still publishing papers about the subject?

If you have a limited number of SHs as in Australias case, the Su could try to run around the SH or at least run it out of gas to overcome it. Not every target is a well defended CBG.
The other way round doesnt work, so the SH has to engage if the Flanker is defendig, probably resulting in a mission kill.
Of course, with 4 Flankers at hand (Indonesia) the result is still obvious…

Exactly – the SH will not be defending one point target like a CVBG.

If target A is protected, what about target B or C?

The SH cannot be everywhere, and doesn’t have the range or speed to cover 2 or 3 at once.

What about refuelling over enemy territory. Not every airspace is such a nice place to be as Afghanistan. If you cant cover the distance in enemy airspace on internal fuel, the target is out of range. F-111 compared to SH will put a lot more targets out of range.
Of course, the question here is what kind of target does OZ want to have covered i.e. if 1000nm+ radius is needed at all.

Again 100% correct. I think INO made a post without fully considering the ins and outs 🙂

Anyone who would purposely murder an innocent person, be they man, woman, old or young is a terrorist. Once a terrorist always a terrorist….you you kill an innocent person in cold blood for some “cause” (there is no cause that justifies that) then you should pay for your crimes be it life in prison of if it were up to me, death.

So what exactly differentiates this from bombing a house from 20,000ft in aid of some “cause” [just a slightly different cause that has no justification either]?

Nah lads, we’ve absolutely no need for fast jets – no matter how hard you try and justify it.

The money is far better spent on getting better roads and rail links.

Sure, the Drogheda bypass is great – till ye get to Dublin and then yer bumper to bumper. I reckon park and ride on a dart/luas combo would work well. Also, how on earth is there still no rail link to the airport? :confused:

Besides – Adhern had enough trouble trying to raise money for “BertieBowl” 😀

Talked to a Viper jock some time ago and he told me that Pratts simply don’t push the jet the way GEs do, even if the paper specs are similar. Cannot elaborate more on that..

Higher mass flow rates with lower exhaust speeds have better propulsive efficiencies any day of the week. 🙂

[especially if both are underexpanded]