dark light

Arthur

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 4,216 through 4,230 (of 6,424 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-4 phantoms #2664634
    Arthur
    Participant

    Well, Matt isn’t praising the F-4 left, right and centre in yet another “Why does everyone hate the Phantom so much except for me, especially you Frank”-hagiography, so i don’t think there is any copyright violation πŸ˜‰

    in reply to: Interesting LCA Pic #2664642
    Arthur
    Participant

    It’s CMF. CDF is an entirely different board. CDF was founded by Totenkopf, Lt.Col. Yu and Xinhui and a few other regular CMF-participants after CMF had reached unprecedented lows because of stupidity, nationalistic morons, nazis and just general numbnuts (something similar seems to happen to a lot of forums…) and CMF’s moderator (YDX) didn’t do anything as long as the morons/nazis/numbnuts just happened to be pro-PRC.

    China-Defense.com, the whole site which carries CDF, was actually made with the ‘total-concept’ of BR in mind. Trust me, the idiots behind the LCA/FC-1 comparison might be posters at CDF (plenty of idiots on every forum unfortunately), but are definately not ‘members’. Can’t help but think you hardly know what you are talking about. Not a regular visitor of either board, and never have been i guess?

    in reply to: Interesting LCA Pic #2664684
    Arthur
    Participant

    Originally posted by sharmaji
    I think it shows the level of technical savyness of these CDF, websites πŸ˜€

    Shows the level of literated savyness of you yourself, seing that these pics are from CMF and are thrashed there just as well :rolleyes:

    in reply to: Interesting LCA Pic #2664788
    Arthur
    Participant

    I have to admit those two pictures put up above are the stupidest displays of ignorance i’ve ever seen. The LCA’s MiG-23 intake being the best one, obviously.

    in reply to: An interesting question from PakistanDefense: #2664837
    Arthur
    Participant

    Originally posted by matt
    India should buy the Lancaster Bombers. πŸ˜€

    Has the contract been finally signed then? Or should we expect more delays…

    in reply to: Interesting LCA Pic #2664843
    Arthur
    Participant

    Originally posted by matt
    ooh look another conical nose cone..

    πŸ˜€

    in reply to: Usaf–reach Callsign #2664854
    Arthur
    Participant

    REACH is pretty much the standard USAF AMC callsign (KC-135, C-5, C-141, C-130, C-17 and occasionally also the civil 747s and such used by the USAF). Could be anything if you don’t have the suffix, if you do you might identify the plane via sites like http://www.the-guide.nl/callsign/call/open.php?page=r , or check it with anyone of the scanhead community.

    in reply to: General Discussion #384626
    Arthur
    Participant

    Now come on Sauron, you know the title of Flaming Vagina is perfectly legit after your sparkling performance in the Lord of the Rings series. That whole ‘eye’ thing was just to save the films from an R-rating πŸ˜€

    Seriously though: why do you actually live in Canada, and haven’t applied for political asylum in the US?

    in reply to: Relocation of UN headquarters to Haiti #1968554
    Arthur
    Participant

    Now come on Sauron, you know the title of Flaming Vagina is perfectly legit after your sparkling performance in the Lord of the Rings series. That whole ‘eye’ thing was just to save the films from an R-rating πŸ˜€

    Seriously though: why do you actually live in Canada, and haven’t applied for political asylum in the US?

    in reply to: PAF over Afghanistan [Russian Perspective] #2665706
    Arthur
    Participant

    The flares were dropped automatically – there was no warning system or anything they were linked to. Flare dispensers had various settings, either fully manual (one press on the button = one flare), semi-automatic (one press on the button = your flare dispenser starts launching an X number of flares at a certain interval) or fully automatic (an series of flares is launched during certain pre-programmed parts of the flight, for example during landing or when climbing out of a target).

    And indeed they didn’t have RWRs. The Mujaheddeen obviously didn’t have radar-guided missiles (in case you guys forgot, an RWR doesn’t notice it when an IR missile is launched), so it wasn’t necessary.

    The big jammers were flown in support of the Backfires indeed because there was a lack of low-key EW. Even though the Tu-22M3s did have RWRs, their jamming capability was not.

    If this doesn’t convince you PLA; please show me where your alleged RWR antenna on the 1980s MiG-23ML or Su-22M4 are. I have plenty of drawings if you need those to point them out :p

    in reply to: PAF over Afghanistan [Russian Perspective] #2665715
    Arthur
    Participant

    SD-10, if you have no interest in being informed in the stuff you don’t like, why do you actually visit this forum?

    in reply to: PAF over Afghanistan [Russian Perspective] #2665737
    Arthur
    Participant

    Yeah, the handful aircraft used by the Coalition certainly defeated the thousands of aircraft Iraq had gathered in the area :rolleyes:

    in reply to: > > > > > > > . Q . U . I . Z . < < < < < < < #2666346
    Arthur
    Participant

    Very normal respons Sean, it’s certainly something i recognise. Though not (yet?) with my own typings πŸ˜€

    in reply to: > > > > > > > . Q . U . I . Z . < < < < < < < #2666365
    Arthur
    Participant

    The base PA office didn’t want AIM (it’s the Volkel-spotters’ quarterly) to put too much emphasis on the Ramstein Hercs which occasionally visit the base. They are always parked near the extremely well fenced-off area which is generally assumed to be the B-61 depot.

    Of course, asking not to give attention to a certain event is likely to be counterproductive πŸ™‚

    in reply to: > > > > > > > . Q . U . I . Z . < < < < < < < #2666462
    Arthur
    Participant

    The editors of AIM recently had another request from the Volkel AB public affairs office not to publish photographs of certain unidentified four-engined RS-coded propeller aircraft πŸ˜‰ , and especially not in front of an alledgedly existing fenced-off area on the base. Better yet: “Woudn’t it be possible not to mention those visitors in your movements at all?” :rolleyes:

    KB and BΓΌchel also still should have their detachments, although the Araxos one was reportedly withdrawn.

Viewing 15 posts - 4,216 through 4,230 (of 6,424 total)