Page 18 – Key Publishing

Please enter a search term.
Sign In
Subscribe now

ATFS_Crash

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 368 total)

← 1 2 3 … 17 18 19 … 23 24 25 →

Author

Posts
April 26, 2007 at 7:35 am in reply to: Al Gore & Sheryl Crow: Brown Party Leaders #1932047

ATFS_Crash
Participant

A laborer retrieves a roll of toilet paper for Sheryl Crow and Rosie O’Donnell.

April 25, 2007 at 5:14 pm in reply to: General Discussion #316932

ATFS_Crash
Participant

Agree this is a little too far

A little far? So what is okay with you, laws mandating that people only use 1.25 sheets per bathroom visit? Just how many sheets is OK with you? 2 or 3 too many?

however, the other comments, and to call these people nuts sadly come from a country that abuses natural resources

Sounds strange coming from a country that was abusing the natural resources long before there even was a US government. You ever consider who taught us to abuse the environment?

drives round in huge cars and trucks when smaller will do

Sounds pretty strange coming from a country that practically invented the SUV for family use and exported it and the idea to the world. Range Rover/Land Rover was one of the first SUVs to be mass marketed for casual family use (not as a legitimate utility/work vehicle).

Sounds pretty strange coming from a country that set the standard for the imperial gallon (a larger measure than the US gallon).

Americans have a tendency to be larger of stature, largely because our land is so rich and productive, unlike much of the rest of the world that has exploited the environment to the point that the soil is depleted and their crops are less productive.

will not sign up to any emissions reduction programmes and produces 40% of the worlds pollution.

Sounds pretty strange coming from countries that produce and use 100% of the leaded gas. Sounds pretty strange coming from countries that still produce 100% of the worst ozone destroying fluorocarbons, and even market some of them to other countries like the US.

The fact is the US is one of the first countries to have emission laws. The fact is that the companies started reducing emissions and increasing fuel economy long before it was mandated.

If the US has such inferior technology for reducing emissions, why is there a mandate in the Kyoto protocol that insists that the US giveaway it’s technology on reducing emissions. Why does the Kyoto protocol insist that the US develop emission reducing technology for the rest of the world and give it away? If other countries are so much better at it and so much more advanced, then they should give it away. hehe

It’s good to see some higher profile people raise this issue. It’s a shame the oil revenue fed current incumbent in the Whitehouse cannot take this serious issue seriously…..

Sure right, we should listen to some of the biggest hypocrites in the world that are exploiting issues for their own personal gain, whether it be political, financial, or just attention.

The real inconvenient truth is that some of the worst people in the world are pretending to be leaders by pretending to jump on the bandwagon of environmentalism, when it is clear that they are Johnny come latelys and that they have no clue what they are talking about and are hypocrites.

Some can talk the talk but don’t bother to walk the walk. Can you
guess who lives in each house?

House 1

The four-bedroom home was planned so that “every room has a
relationship with something in the landscape that’s different from
the room next door.
Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place.” The
resulting single-story house is a paragon of environmental planning.

The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone
and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior
walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence. Geothermal
heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the
ground.

These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home
warm in winter and cool in summer. A 25,000-gallon underground cistern
collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks,
toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is
also funneled into the cistern.

The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping
around the four-bedroom home, (which) uses indigenous grasses,
shrubs, and flowers to complete the exterior treatment of the home.
In addition to its minimal environmental impact, the look and layout
of the house reflect one of the
paramount priorities: relaxation.

A spacious 10-foot porch wraps completely around the residence and
beckons the family outdoors. With few hallways to speak of, family
and guests make their way from room to room either directly or by way
of the porch. “The house doesn’t hold you in Where the porch ends,
there is grass. There is no step-up
at all.”

This house consumes 25% of the energy of an average American home.
(Source: Cowboys and Indians Magazine, Oct. 2002 and Chicago Tribune
April 2001.)

House 2

This 20-room, 8-bathroom house consumes more electricity every month
than the average American household uses in an entire year. The average
household in America consumes 10,656 kilo watt-hours (kWh) per
year, according to the Department of Energy.

In 2006, this house devoured nearly 221,000 kWh, more than 20 times
the national average. Last August alone, the house burned through
22,619 kWh,
guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average
American family uses in an entire year.

As a result of this energy consumption, the average monthly electric
bill topped $1,359. Also, natural gas bills for this house and guest
house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, this house had
nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for
2006. (Source: just about anywhere in the news last month online and
on talk radio, but barely on TV.)

*House 1 belongs to George and Laura Bush, in Crawford, Texas.

House 2 belongs to Al and Tipper Gore in Nashville,Tennessee.

I cannot vouch for the alleged data in that quote. Whether or not the actual figures are true or not, the premise seems to be authentic. I think it may be a tale based on the real inconvenient truth.

What this actually shows is the difference in the two mens approach to the problem.

Al Gore believes that government programs are the answer and wants the government to use its power to force you and me and everyone else to do what he believes must be done (the fact that he will probably profit from this is also a consideration).

George Bush believes that government programs are not the answer and result in a loss of freedom. He believes that individual free choice with regard to environmental issues will result in the best solution, and the role of government is to provide the widest possible choice (as an example, providing incentives for alternative energy sources).

I think it is hypocrisy that people live in mansions tell us that we waste energy for home uses, when they themselves use several times more than we do. In some cases their hypocrisy is so bad that they use more energy in their home in one month, then the typical homeowner uses in an entire year.

I think it is hypocrisy that people that drive Hummers and that have chauffeurs drive them around in humongous bulletproof armored limousines that get less than 5 miles a gallon, tell us that our vehicles are too big and use too much fuel.

I think it is hypocrisy that people that have more houses and more cars then household members, tell people that have much less that they are consuming too much.

A lot of these environmentalists wackos are Sociopaths, that are exploiting using fear mongering and environmentalism as a springboard to line their own pockets so they can get more of the very things that they are campaigning against.

So I should be inspired by Al Gore that claims to be able to predict the weather a decade advance; when highly trained meteorologists cannot even accurately predict the weather a couple weeks in advance?

Over five years ago Al Gore allegedly claimed something to the effect; that it would be 10 years before the world crossed the point of no return to extinction for mankind. So that means according to Al Gore, we have less than five years before we cross the tipping point.

The fact is by burning hydrocarbons like oil we might be diminishing the threat of a mass extinction. If we were to find a way harvest the “methane ice” that is stored under the ocean and other forms of methane and burn it at a conservative rate, we can further reduce the risk of mass extinction.

The fact is the oil and the methane are natural and will eventually reach the atmosphere and will almost certainly cause a mass extinction if we don’t use it at a conservatively moderate rate.

The last moderate meteor strike of the earth’s crust released enough greenhouse gases in one event, that exceeded over 300 times of the maximum amount of man-made greenhouse gases released in one year.
(Let me put it another way; the last time a moderate size meteor struck the earth’s crust, the amount of green house gases that was released from the resulting releasing & burning oil and methane, ect… released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in less the one year; then 300 over years at the rate greenhouse gasses are being put into the air now by man.)

The oil and methane is the equivalent of a greenhouse bomb, do we allow the environment to slightly warm so it is slowly dissipate the heat, or do we let it releases suddenly in a catastrophic event that would cause massive sudden extinctions, like the one that killed the dinosaurs and most other life?

Like they say, history as a way of repeating itself. If you don’t learn from history you, are doomed to repeat it.

It is ridiculous that shallow people like Al Gore and his followers that are using pseudoscience to further themselves and exploit people and the environment. When they really should be trying to actually save the environment. The problem is most of these people have such an infantile shallow understanding of science, that they actually believe their own lies.

According to environmental wackos alcohol is environmentally friendly. Alcohol is a good alternative renewable energy source and can be helpful in small quantities however it still contributes to the greenhouse gases and is very harmful smog component. Alcohol makes more smog then gasoline.

This post just scratches the surface.

This should have been posted on April 1st as she now claims it was a joke. Maybe the adverse publicity has made it into a joke.:D

If it really was a joke, how come she defended her statement at first? How come she didn’t admit it was a joke until long after she defended her statements? If she is now claiming it was a joke, I would be suspicious she is now embarrassed by her statement and is now using the joke claim as a cover story.;)

April 25, 2007 at 5:14 pm in reply to: Al Gore & Sheryl Crow: Brown Party Leaders #1932061

ATFS_Crash
Participant

Agree this is a little too far

A little far? So what is okay with you, laws mandating that people only use 1.25 sheets per bathroom visit? Just how many sheets is OK with you? 2 or 3 too many?

however, the other comments, and to call these people nuts sadly come from a country that abuses natural resources

Sounds strange coming from a country that was abusing the natural resources long before there even was a US government. You ever consider who taught us to abuse the environment?

drives round in huge cars and trucks when smaller will do

Sounds pretty strange coming from a country that practically invented the SUV for family use and exported it and the idea to the world. Range Rover/Land Rover was one of the first SUVs to be mass marketed for casual family use (not as a legitimate utility/work vehicle).

Sounds pretty strange coming from a country that set the standard for the imperial gallon (a larger measure than the US gallon).

Americans have a tendency to be larger of stature, largely because our land is so rich and productive, unlike much of the rest of the world that has exploited the environment to the point that the soil is depleted and their crops are less productive.

will not sign up to any emissions reduction programmes and produces 40% of the worlds pollution.

Sounds pretty strange coming from countries that produce and use 100% of the leaded gas. Sounds pretty strange coming from countries that still produce 100% of the worst ozone destroying fluorocarbons, and even market some of them to other countries like the US.

The fact is the US is one of the first countries to have emission laws. The fact is that the companies started reducing emissions and increasing fuel economy long before it was mandated.

If the US has such inferior technology for reducing emissions, why is there a mandate in the Kyoto protocol that insists that the US giveaway it’s technology on reducing emissions. Why does the Kyoto protocol insist that the US develop emission reducing technology for the rest of the world and give it away? If other countries are so much better at it and so much more advanced, then they should give it away. hehe

It’s good to see some higher profile people raise this issue. It’s a shame the oil revenue fed current incumbent in the Whitehouse cannot take this serious issue seriously…..

Sure right, we should listen to some of the biggest hypocrites in the world that are exploiting issues for their own personal gain, whether it be political, financial, or just attention.

The real inconvenient truth is that some of the worst people in the world are pretending to be leaders by pretending to jump on the bandwagon of environmentalism, when it is clear that they are Johnny come latelys and that they have no clue what they are talking about and are hypocrites.

Some can talk the talk but don’t bother to walk the walk. Can you
guess who lives in each house?

House 1

The four-bedroom home was planned so that “every room has a
relationship with something in the landscape that’s different from
the room next door.
Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place.” The
resulting single-story house is a paragon of environmental planning.

The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone
and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior
walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence. Geothermal
heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the
ground.

These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home
warm in winter and cool in summer. A 25,000-gallon underground cistern
collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks,
toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is
also funneled into the cistern.

The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping
around the four-bedroom home, (which) uses indigenous grasses,
shrubs, and flowers to complete the exterior treatment of the home.
In addition to its minimal environmental impact, the look and layout
of the house reflect one of the
paramount priorities: relaxation.

A spacious 10-foot porch wraps completely around the residence and
beckons the family outdoors. With few hallways to speak of, family
and guests make their way from room to room either directly or by way
of the porch. “The house doesn’t hold you in Where the porch ends,
there is grass. There is no step-up
at all.”

This house consumes 25% of the energy of an average American home.
(Source: Cowboys and Indians Magazine, Oct. 2002 and Chicago Tribune
April 2001.)

House 2

This 20-room, 8-bathroom house consumes more electricity every month
than the average American household uses in an entire year. The average
household in America consumes 10,656 kilo watt-hours (kWh) per
year, according to the Department of Energy.

In 2006, this house devoured nearly 221,000 kWh, more than 20 times
the national average. Last August alone, the house burned through
22,619 kWh,
guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average
American family uses in an entire year.

As a result of this energy consumption, the average monthly electric
bill topped $1,359. Also, natural gas bills for this house and guest
house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, this house had
nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for
2006. (Source: just about anywhere in the news last month online and
on talk radio, but barely on TV.)

*House 1 belongs to George and Laura Bush, in Crawford, Texas.

House 2 belongs to Al and Tipper Gore in Nashville,Tennessee.

I cannot vouch for the alleged data in that quote. Whether or not the actual figures are true or not, the premise seems to be authentic. I think it may be a tale based on the real inconvenient truth.

What this actually shows is the difference in the two mens approach to the problem.

Al Gore believes that government programs are the answer and wants the government to use its power to force you and me and everyone else to do what he believes must be done (the fact that he will probably profit from this is also a consideration).

George Bush believes that government programs are not the answer and result in a loss of freedom. He believes that individual free choice with regard to environmental issues will result in the best solution, and the role of government is to provide the widest possible choice (as an example, providing incentives for alternative energy sources).

I think it is hypocrisy that people live in mansions tell us that we waste energy for home uses, when they themselves use several times more than we do. In some cases their hypocrisy is so bad that they use more energy in their home in one month, then the typical homeowner uses in an entire year.

I think it is hypocrisy that people that drive Hummers and that have chauffeurs drive them around in humongous bulletproof armored limousines that get less than 5 miles a gallon, tell us that our vehicles are too big and use too much fuel.

I think it is hypocrisy that people that have more houses and more cars then household members, tell people that have much less that they are consuming too much.

A lot of these environmentalists wackos are Sociopaths, that are exploiting using fear mongering and environmentalism as a springboard to line their own pockets so they can get more of the very things that they are campaigning against.

So I should be inspired by Al Gore that claims to be able to predict the weather a decade advance; when highly trained meteorologists cannot even accurately predict the weather a couple weeks in advance?

Over five years ago Al Gore allegedly claimed something to the effect; that it would be 10 years before the world crossed the point of no return to extinction for mankind. So that means according to Al Gore, we have less than five years before we cross the tipping point.

The fact is by burning hydrocarbons like oil we might be diminishing the threat of a mass extinction. If we were to find a way harvest the “methane ice” that is stored under the ocean and other forms of methane and burn it at a conservative rate, we can further reduce the risk of mass extinction.

The fact is the oil and the methane are natural and will eventually reach the atmosphere and will almost certainly cause a mass extinction if we don’t use it at a conservatively moderate rate.

The last moderate meteor strike of the earth’s crust released enough greenhouse gases in one event, that exceeded over 300 times of the maximum amount of man-made greenhouse gases released in one year.
(Let me put it another way; the last time a moderate size meteor struck the earth’s crust, the amount of green house gases that was released from the resulting releasing & burning oil and methane, ect… released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in less the one year; then 300 over years at the rate greenhouse gasses are being put into the air now by man.)

The oil and methane is the equivalent of a greenhouse bomb, do we allow the environment to slightly warm so it is slowly dissipate the heat, or do we let it releases suddenly in a catastrophic event that would cause massive sudden extinctions, like the one that killed the dinosaurs and most other life?

Like they say, history as a way of repeating itself. If you don’t learn from history you, are doomed to repeat it.

It is ridiculous that shallow people like Al Gore and his followers that are using pseudoscience to further themselves and exploit people and the environment. When they really should be trying to actually save the environment. The problem is most of these people have such an infantile shallow understanding of science, that they actually believe their own lies.

According to environmental wackos alcohol is environmentally friendly. Alcohol is a good alternative renewable energy source and can be helpful in small quantities however it still contributes to the greenhouse gases and is very harmful smog component. Alcohol makes more smog then gasoline.

This post just scratches the surface.

This should have been posted on April 1st as she now claims it was a joke. Maybe the adverse publicity has made it into a joke.:D

If it really was a joke, how come she defended her statement at first? How come she didn’t admit it was a joke until long after she defended her statements? If she is now claiming it was a joke, I would be suspicious she is now embarrassed by her statement and is now using the joke claim as a cover story.;)

April 25, 2007 at 7:30 am in reply to: General Discussion #316991

ATFS_Crash
Participant

re

The most common way to do it is to use a photo editing program like Photoshop or Ulead Photo Impact. Each program is a little different, usually one of the advanced settings is compression, using compression you can shrink the size of the file, but you will lose some of the quality.

Usually the way it works is when you save the photo/file it gives you several choices with the photo editor, typically at his best to save with JPEG until you get the handle of it. Often one of the advanced saving options is a compression setting, often you can set the size in %, or size in pixels, or in height/width.

There are other methods, I think there are some converters that have the ability to shrink or set the size of the file.

April 25, 2007 at 7:30 am in reply to: email attachments……help please! #1932092

ATFS_Crash
Participant

re

The most common way to do it is to use a photo editing program like Photoshop or Ulead Photo Impact. Each program is a little different, usually one of the advanced settings is compression, using compression you can shrink the size of the file, but you will lose some of the quality.

Usually the way it works is when you save the photo/file it gives you several choices with the photo editor, typically at his best to save with JPEG until you get the handle of it. Often one of the advanced saving options is a compression setting, often you can set the size in %, or size in pixels, or in height/width.

There are other methods, I think there are some converters that have the ability to shrink or set the size of the file.

April 24, 2007 at 7:50 pm in reply to: General Discussion #317017

ATFS_Crash
Participant

Condolences. I am deftly no expert on Russian politics, however I cannot help but admire Yeltsin from my point of view. He took some big personal risks to try to improve USSR. He chose a road that is very hard to hoe, some of the changes he made had some immediate benefits, but involved some changes that were very painful for the country to make midterm, hopefully the changes he made will continue to improve the Soviet bloc countries and make the pain of change worth it for most.

Rasputin? 😮

That’s Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull, as any fule kno.

Are Ian Anderson & Rasputin bathing habits about the same? :rolleyes:

I was at a US Air Force museum with a friend, he asked what’s that rendition of Lenin and Stalin doing on that hanger, it was an artist rendition of the Wright brothers. :rolleyes:

April 24, 2007 at 7:50 pm in reply to: End of an Era – Boris Yelsin DEAD!!! #1932113

ATFS_Crash
Participant

Condolences. I am deftly no expert on Russian politics, however I cannot help but admire Yeltsin from my point of view. He took some big personal risks to try to improve USSR. He chose a road that is very hard to hoe, some of the changes he made had some immediate benefits, but involved some changes that were very painful for the country to make midterm, hopefully the changes he made will continue to improve the Soviet bloc countries and make the pain of change worth it for most.

Rasputin? 😮

That’s Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull, as any fule kno.

Are Ian Anderson & Rasputin bathing habits about the same? :rolleyes:

I was at a US Air Force museum with a friend, he asked what’s that rendition of Lenin and Stalin doing on that hanger, it was an artist rendition of the Wright brothers. :rolleyes:

March 24, 2007 at 9:55 pm in reply to: Convair 200 VTOL #2550706

ATFS_Crash
Participant

I take it you’ve never seen a Rafale?

It is an easy mistake to make since the Rafale is a copy.

I am joking.

March 23, 2007 at 11:58 pm in reply to: Possible highjack attempt foiled or dry run. LOS ANGELES #551326

ATFS_Crash
Participant

Huh? This is Nuts, They released the Two guys without clearing up the story first? They released Two possible terrorist on bale without making sure they were really employees? Huh? They didn’t charge them for impersonation or carrirying a concealed weapon? Huh?

Pair held at L.A. airport had isle inmate, FBI says
State and FBI disagree on couple being held at the L.A. airport
By Nelson Daranciang

Los Angeles police arrested two people who were taking a handcuffed person aboard a flight to Hawaii on Friday, but it was not until yesterday that the FBI released some details.

The two people were apparently working for a private security company that had a contract with the Hawaii government to transport prisoners, the FBI said.

However, the state does not contract with a private security company for prisoner transport, said James Propotnick, deputy public safety director for law enforcement.

The person in handcuffs apparently is still in custody because the FBI says he is awaiting transport.

——————————————————————————–

Two people arrested at Los Angeles International Airport while trying to take a handcuffed man on a flight to Hawaii were private security officers for a company that apparently has a contract with the state to transport prisoners, said Laura Eimiller, FBI spokeswoman.

But James Propotnick, state Department of Public Safety deputy director for law enforcement, said the state does not use private security to transport prisoners.

Eimiller said the man in handcuffs is a prisoner still awaiting transport to Hawaii, but declined to identify him. She confirmed the FBI in Los Angeles is investigating the case.

“The FBI is in consultation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for possible federal charges,” Eimiller said.

She suggested the suspects might not have gotten into trouble had they not tried to carry a firearm on board and claimed to be law enforcement officers.

There are specific steps a law enforcement officer needs to follow in order to carry a weapon on board a commercial airline, said Nico Menendez, Transportation Security Administration spokesman. The TSA also has guidelines for private security officers transporting prisoners, but Menendez declined to say what they are.

Los Angeles Airport Police officers arrested Rosemary Sanchez, 48, of Riverside, Calif., and Gary D. Garratt, 53, of Fresno, Calif., on Friday, according to inmate information records with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The woman was arrested for carrying a concealed firearm and impersonating a peace officer, while the man was arrested for impersonating a peace officer, said Belinda Nettles, LAAPD spokeswoman.

Sanchez and Garratt were released from custody Saturday after they each posted $35,000 bail. Neither has been charged with any crimes.

The suspects entered the TSA screening area on Friday claiming to have peace officer authority to transport a prisoner out of state, Nettles said. The woman also said she was carrying a firearm, and produced documentation that suggested they were authorized to carry firearms onto an aircraft, police said.

Airport police conducted a credential verification check and determined the woman was not a police officer and did not have a permit to carry a firearm, Nettles said.

http://starbulletin.com/2007/03/22/news/story06.html

March 22, 2007 at 2:13 pm in reply to: Possible highjack attempt foiled or dry run. LOS ANGELES #552047

ATFS_Crash
Participant

They claim they were “security officers”?
What do they mean “security officers”? I get the idea that these guys we just buffoon security guards. Are they legal trained governmental officers of the law?

If the story is accurate, the stupidity of the so-called “security officers” is staggering. People that are supposed to be transporting prisoners don’t know the gun and transportation laws and regulations, and are representing themselves as law enforcement?

I would be interested in any information from this trial.

I hope they prosecute these so-called “security officers”, unless there is something significant to the story that hasn’t surfaced yet.

It looks like buffoonery, however I still wouldn’t rule out a few other possibilities, I guess we’ll know when more news becomes public on this matter.

I still can’t help but wonder if this is part of the cover story for a security probe by some alphabet soup governmental agency, or if they are security guards that had some sinister intent. It would be interesting to see how the story pans out.

Unfortunately on this matter I am dependent on the media for information.

Pair could face federal charges after LAX arrest, FBI says

LOS ANGELES A pair of private security officers arrested at Los Angeles International Airport while taking a handcuffed man to Hawaii could face federal charges.

That’s according to the F-B-I today..

Agency spokeswoman Laura Eimiller says the F-B-I is talking with the U-S attorney’s office and is seeking possible federal charges against the pair for attempting to board a plane with a weapon while representing themselves as law enforcement officers.

She said the two appearantely work for a company that contracts with Hawaii to transport the state’s prisoners.

She declined to identify the company.

Jane Robison is a spokeswoman with the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office.

She says 53-year-old Gary D. Garratt and 48-year-old Rosemary Sanchez were arrested on Friday morning at L-A-X for investigation of impersonating peace officers.

No state charges have been filed.

Their prisoner’s identity, his location and other details could not be immediately determined.

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=6261934&nav=menu55_2

March 21, 2007 at 9:24 pm in reply to: Self proclaimed experts bash the F-22 #2551683

ATFS_Crash
Participant

Detection range of the AN/ASG-18 against a large RCS target was 150 NM. AIM-47 long-range performance was never proven in flight test (as it never got that far), with the longest-range kill taking place at a launch range of 36.3 NM.

It depends on the variables. I think that was about the TWS range of an extreme lookdown large target. I think the RWS range was greater. I think the exact figures are still classified.

The ASG-18 was a combination of long range radar and infrared search sensors along with a precision radar coupled to the infrared tracking system. Range of the trackers was estimated at 200 to 300 miles giving the YF-12A unprecedented ability to track and destroy enemy aircraft.

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/yf12~1.htm

From what I understand the reason they didn’t test it longer range is they didn’t want to endanger the public, and they didn’t want to risk the critical parts to get into the wrong hands, since it was very secret at the time.

From what it is essentially a primitive version of the AIM-54, so the ranges should be similer.

Boasting a range in excess of 160 km (100 mi)

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-47.html

March 21, 2007 at 6:41 pm in reply to: Self proclaimed experts bash the F-22 #2551731

ATFS_Crash
Participant

can you prove the PAK FA is not better than the F-22? the answer is not

False. There is a big difference between a combat aircraft in service than one in development. An airplane is useless until it’s ready for service.

there are no reasons to doubt the paper

False. There are many reasons to doubt the article. As I pointed out the self appointed expert couldn’t even identify the F-22 properly. The article made it sound like the F-22 never reached Japan for its mission, on the contrary it made it just wasn’t as early as it was planned.

The paper is not propaganda

False, as several including myself have already shown there is obvious bias in ways that show it is propaganda.

Even Russians often refer to the source as a tabloid.

I still don’t get what is the whole fuzz about Raptor about, when hundreds of ICBMs are still ready to wipe out the whole planet on both sides. Yes, those Raptors included.

So what does that convoluted statement supposed to mean? We should not build fighters because they are useless because of ICBMs?

Using your line of thinking we should get rid of all our weapons except for ICBMs. If ICBMs are all we have to defend ourselves and protect our interests, don’t you see that increases the odds of atomic war? Still think your idea is smart?

That would be like equipping police officers only with guns.

Apparently you don’t care about collateral damage (killing innocent people).

Would those 100 Raptors be able to wipe out the entire Flanker fleet in a hypothetical large-scale battle? Probably yes. So? Is that the big deal? What does it change?

It could mean is much to the US as the Hurricane and the Spitfire meant England in World War II. It could easily mean more, by having a fighter and could be a deterrent to those that might attempt to start a war that could result in the end of civilization.

So the F-22 could prevent oblivion. What does it all matter anyway, were all going to die?

It could easily make the difference between freedom and death. Dramatic enough for you?

Does not exist? read the paper they are building the PAK FA now, they are assembling it as we chat,

False, it is still in the research and development stage according to the article that you defend. According to the article that you defend they are still working on test models.

As others have since pointed out to you, just because you start on a project doesn’t mean that you will finish it. History is littered with failures and abandon projects.

Let’s remind that what is meant is not the world’s only aircraft with the forward-swept wings (Su-47), which was used as a flying laboratory for the fifth generation, but a totally new machine, which nobody has seen so far.

Obviously never heard of Grumman’s X-29…:rolleyes:

Evidently the X-29 never existed, nor has any other foreword swept wing aircraft. 😉

PAK-FA will be able to effectively counter the F-22. Why would Russians bother design it if it does not??

Perhaps they want to try to build a better fighter than they already have, so they can try to catch up.

You are obviously speculating that the PAK-FA would be able to effectively counter the F-22. You are using propagandists tactics of stating your opinions as facts.

Just because Russian is building a new fighter doesn’t necessarily mean it will be as good as the F-22.

Russia has been building new fighter radar for every few years and it took them about 3-4 decades to about match the range we had in the 60s.

Finally, against legacy teen fighters current Flankers and modern Fulcrums are more than a match , so what is the point?

I have heard this story before. The Fulcrum was allegedly vastly superior to its western counterparts, yet not a single F-15 or F-16 has been lost to the Fulcrum. Haven’t some Fulcrums been shot down in combat by the allegedly vastly inferior western aircraft?

It seems their legacy is losing.

My point: The title of the “world’s best fighter” has allways been time limited, the Raptor holds it today, but rest asured it will be contested.

I suspect you are correct. Today’s leaders often ends up as tomorrow’s followers. The title of leader is a torch that is frequently passed between the nations.

In a way the Russians have the advantage have the next possible leader in the fighter aircraft arena. Russia has the advantage of using raptor technology and improving it for its own use and incorporating it with its own advances.

Technology is often like a ladder, each advance is based on previous steps.

In 1945 the Me-262 was the “best fighter”, but what was the gain?

The Me-262 was too late in the war to do much good, particularly when it was used incompetently.

Having the most advanced aircraft in the world is useless if bad tactics are employed. Much like the F-117 that was shot down because it repeatedly flew on a predictable flight path that allowed a turkey shoot ambush.

Nobody knows.

Agreed. The exact performance of the F-22 is unknown and secret. The same will be true for the PAK-FA. As you say it is academic and largely opinion.

It also depends on the variables. The scenario, the electronics package, the model, the mission, the load out, the weather, pilot training, tactics, ect… a fighter that might be superior under some conditions, can be the underdog and other conditions.

Please someone get the joke!

Thanks to djcross I got the joke. 😉

That is not correct, since 1981, the Su-27 was a better fighter in performance and agility, the Su-27 is more agile and has better acceleration, of course the F-15 was armed with the Python IV in the mid 1990s. The F-15 has not proved in the battlefield it is better than the Su-27, and on same conditions the F-15 will be the looser. The Su-30MKI only is totally superior to the F-15 but in reality in the arms race both superpowers held advantages at a certain time.

False. The SU-27 has virtually no combat experience whereas the F-15 has a long and successful combat record. And

From 1970 to 1977, the MiG-23s and MiG-25s were better than anything the west had until 1976 and 1974 when the first F-15s and F-14 were deployed the MiG-23 and MiG-25 surpassed the F-4E, the F-15, F-14 and F-16 lost their superiority in 1985 when the Su-27, MiG-31 and MiG-29 were deployed in quantity and it was not before until the year 1997 when Israel deployed the Python IV that the advantage returned to the F-15 and F-16, but in technology both the MiG-29M, Su-27M and MiG-31M were capable of dealing with the threat, in fact has been economics what has kept the Russians fighters behind in the 1990s, but not technology [/B]

False. In 1962 the B-58 Hustler testbed version “Snoopy” was capable of the downing aircraft from about 100 miles ASG-18 radar & GAR-9/AIM-47 (which is essentially an early version of the AIM-54 Phoenix) missile combination. The range of the radar was estimated at between 200 and 300 miles.
http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/B-52s_in_the_desert.htm

Note the missile. B-58 with AIM-47 loaded/monted externally.

The YF-12 essentially used the same missile and radar combination and was capable of shooting down aircraft that were over 100 miles away. The YF-12 was an early version of stealth that could maintain flight faster than Mach 3.2 and was capable of extreme altitude.

ASG-18 radar

On 22 March 1966 #936 flying at Mach 3.15 and altitude of 74,500 feet launched an AIM-47 missile successfully intercepting and destroying a Q-2C Drone flying at 1,500 feet. On 13 May 1966 flying at Mach 3.17 and an altitude of 74,000 feet #936 successfully intercepted and destroyed a Q-2C Drone flying at 20,000 feet. The third and final missile intercept occurred on 21 September, 1966 with #936 flying at Mach 3.2 and an altitude of 75,000 feet successfully intercepted and destroyed a QB-47 (SN#34256; the target for the inert warhead test firing) conducted out of Edwards AFB and flying at 500 feet in the Mugu Range. This intercept removed three feet off the left horizontal stabilizer of the QB-47.

Whereas the Mig-25 had inferior radar and missiles and the Mig-25 was a nice big juicy radar and IR target that would quickly burn up its engines trying to go as fast as the F-12.

March 20, 2007 at 6:09 am in reply to: Israel's CAEW "track-before-detection" technique #2552518

ATFS_Crash
Participant

according to report that Israel G-550 CAEW radar incorporate “track-before-detection” technique,allowing the radar to detect stealth or small RCS aircraft.
Just how Track before detection work?Is there additional information on this subject?

“track-before-detection”

I find that an oxymoron (as George Carlin puts it).

Most people that know really won’t go into much detail. I don’t think it is quite what it sounds like but it is useful.

March 19, 2007 at 1:29 pm in reply to: Venezuelan SU-30 Shoots Down US F-16 over Cuba (so they say) #2552801

ATFS_Crash
Participant

you do not like the mexicans because Mexicans are Indians and the descendants of Indians……

You should take your own advice. I really don’t care about race or nationality that much, what bothers me is the problem is the ILLEAGLE immigration causes. You just crying because debunked your hateful propaganda claims with logic. The responses to your posts is Karma from your own hate, you’re likely to get more.

Perhaps the reason you are so bitter is because your how you treat others because of your prejudices. You reap what you sow (Another way of saying karma).

Sorry but most legal aliens agree that the ILLEAGLE aliens are causing a lot of trouble. My family and I all followed the law. It’s not fair that we should have to pay the price for people that are full of hate and don’t obey the law.

You should look at yourself, before you judge others.

Your own post shows your prejudice, how do you know I am not a Native American (Indian) or Mexican? Once again, with your own hate, you hung yourself.

Whatever happened to SU-30 versus F-16

Partly true. Good point

However part of the reason I posted the thread with the two different stories was to show how it seems people are taking an aircraft accident, and how some people will twist it with lies to promote propaganda to spread their hate to others. Ironically that is what some people are doing in this thread with all these wild claims and diversions.

I was wondering which news story was truer, what really happened to the F-16 and why the stories are so different?

If you look at the date of the news article, the US made the first claim. So it looks like someone thought they would twist it into something else.

March 18, 2007 at 8:59 am in reply to: Venezuelan SU-30 Shoots Down US F-16 over Cuba (so they say) #2553071

ATFS_Crash
Participant

to the contrary, the F-16s safety record is not any better than any other modern day single engine fighter..

I don’t see how you figure the F-16s safety record is not excellent, even the links you posted show that. Yeah there are some mishaps, but when you consider how many there are how frequently they fly and what type of flying they do, the record is extremely good. As it shows the typical number of flight hours is very high compared to the ratio of accidents.

The F-16s safety record is excellent compared to other single-engine fighters. I think one of the worse is the MIG-21. Part of the problem is that the MIG-21 is virtually antiques, however some of that should be offset by how relatively simplistic the MIG-21 is. India was having massive problems with them even though they were hardly flying them and only had a few, and typically doing milk runs.

Sure you can find some problems in the past with the F-16, most of them have been worked out. Sure the F-16 might have an overall high accident quantity, however that is because so many of them fly so much and doing such risky missions, it’s a wonder there hasn’t been more lost. Like I said the F-16 is safer because when you compare the amount of flight hours to the accident ratio, the F-16 has an impressively safe history.

LOCKHEED MARTIN F-16 CONTINUES RECORD AS SAFEST SINGLE-ENGINE MULTIROLE FIGHTER

If you would bother to read the articles that you posted, they indicate the F-16 has an excellent safety history. You seem to have a sampling bias in what you read.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 368 total)

← 1 2 3 … 17 18 19 … 23 24 25 →