I think I might have to agree with Pilothgt on this one.

Take for example the sentence from Kerala News, ‘This would help the ship to continue with its mission. The team of experts will land on board wherever the ship is anchored. This helps save time,” sources said.

Those could be Pakistani sources for all you know…:)

Originally posted by Phil Foster
Don’t know mate but its not the first time this question has been asked. A short while ago the USAF exercised with the IDF-AF and the Israelis were quite happy to publish the perceived results.

Sounds like the home team gets some bragging rights to feel good, while the USAF keeps mum about the real results.

What I meant was, named in the style of the ‘patriot’. Most of the ones you mentioned frankvw, with the exception of the Hawk and rapier, are after greek mythology. I was just wondering if there were more continuity in the naming styles, but then again, hawk and rapier don’t really go together anyhow.:)

So why exactly did the former controller give opposing directions to the Russian plane?

Originally posted by seahawk
That is not true eiterh. During and before the IIPGW the ATBM missile programm for the Patriot system was in very early stages. The US Army did not even have enough modified missiles to equip the units in the area with 1 launcher full of PAC1+.

J33Nelson was implying that absolutely none of the Patriots in the First Gulf War (until recently) had any atbm capability. Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but by and large, the PAC-1 upgrade was mainly a software update to reshape the missile trajectory and search pattern, and this was done in the 80s to give an ad hox atbm measure.

Also, according to this reference, ( Davis, R. Operation Desert Storm: Project manager’s assessment… US GAO, 1992), 424 PAC-2s were shipped off to the Gulf by January of 1991.

Originally posted by J33Nelson
“So you’re saying the reports of the failed PAC intercepts are completely false?”

No. I am saying that it was never designed to have an Anti-Ballistic Missile capability.

“I suppose you have other information that is not originating from your posterior?”

Did you even read my post :rolleyes:

That’s not true- they were modified in the 80s to have a limited ATBM capability. The DoD should not have trumpeted them as great successes in the first Gulf War when in fact they weren’t. The ones rushed and deployed to the Gulf in 1990-91 were of the PAC-2 type, with more significant (or so they thought) atbm abilities.

Of course I read your post; your blanket statement ‘The press and media are just retarded and always bring up stupid things that are false.’ was rather ignorant.

Originally posted by J33Nelson
Only recently has the Patriot been upgraded with an Anti-Ballistic Missile capability. The press and media are just retarded and always bring up stupid things that are false.

So you’re saying the reports of the failed PAC intercepts are completely false? I suppose you have other information that is not originating from your posterior?:)

Originally posted by PhantomII
You knew this would set me off didn’t you?

Once again that’s a great photo you’ve posted, but again it’s NOT the J.699 so stop calling it that.

It is the F-CK-1 (not FCK-1) Ching-Kuo, and it was produced by AIDC in Taiwain (Nationalist China).

It has nothing to do with the PRC or the Jianjii aircraft in service with the PLAAF and PLAN so it cannot have the designation J-anything.

SO STOP IT!

You’re disrespecting the Chinese (Nationalist that is) who built this airplane by calling it something its not and by calling it the J.699 you’re inferring that the J-7 is a better airplane and it’s not.

Can you tell me what is wrong with you?

Everytime you write F-CK-1, it reads as if you’re trying to blot out an expletive.:)

Calm down PII, no harm no foul.