In fact remember the F-111 was an aircraft that was going to be armed with the AIM-54, another fighter was the YF-12 that was also going to be a super fast aircraft but both aircraft never bacame fighters but one a bomber and another a surveillance aircraft, in fact the F-14 inherited some of the deficiencies of the F-111 with the TF-30 engines

The F-111B naval variant was to carry the dedicated AIM-54 weapon system to function as a fleet defense interceptor. Although, there was supposed to be an AIM-7 variant matched to the F-111, but that never happened.

The YF-12 was never intended to be anything more than a high-speed intercpetor targeting bombers. No need to maneuver a-la Boyd there either.

The F-14 was never intended to rely on the TF-30, re-engining was always in the plans, but it never came to pass until much later with the F-14A+ and F-14D.

Sarcasm, the rolleyes, is so unbecoming in this context.

Oh yes, and insulting my intelligence is perfectly fine…

:rolleyes:

As for, ‘Finally, see what correlates with climate change more: solar activity, or CO2 emissions’ this is one of the lines trotted out by those who wish to believe that solar activity is the prime cause of climate change

Why is it not possible? It’d certainly explain how the planet managed to undergo warming and cooling periods thousands of years ago when evil humans weren’t vomiting CFCs into the atmosphere…an aspect of climate change that the alarmists seem to be ignoring on purpose.

I would rather rely upon Wiki’ than Fox.

Oh, get real. The article I posted was a reprint of an article from The Times. Fox also posts AP articles as well.

Let’s look at some hard data.

Here are the climate change trends from 1980 to 2006: NASA GISS

Here are the trends from 1980-1990:NASA GISS

And here are the trends from 2000-2006: NASA GISS

You’ll notice that while there was a widespread warming trend over the entire period, warming has slowed down considerably over the eastern half of the map since 1990 and has shown significant cooling trends since 2000, particularly over most or Europe and the US west coast, to name a few areas. How does that data fit the concept of climate change insofar as a GLOBAL temperature increase?

Once again, I’m not saying the climate is changing. I’m not saying man has nothing to do with it necessarily. I just don’t buy all of the hype over CO2 levels.

Plus, did you know that typically temperature increases have occurred PRIOR to CO2 increases? Does CO2 work retroactively?

And are you aware that as recently as 1992 there were scientists up in arms over the coming Ice Age?

So if CO2 is responsible for global climate change, how did it affect the climate thousands of years ago?

Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”?:cool:

😀

What’s the black flag in the fourth picture, looked a bit like the ‘Jolly Roger’ for a moment?

That’s the POW-MIA memorial flag.

Yeah really, nice shots. I really like the seventh one, I have no idea why…

I wonder who will be first to claim here that Mr. Boyd`s manuever “flat-plating the bird” was nothing more than a sitting duck maneuver or a pointless cobra-like stunt.:D 😀 😀 😀 😀

best regards
M

Of course it wasn’t pointless during that period…or did the F-100 have some sort of BVR weapon system we’re all ignorant of? 😀

Firstly SOC you are showing a fundemental lack of understanding…It is also apparant that you are not someone who regularly handles/generates statistics..you are illlustrating your lack of scientific understanding.

:rolleyes:

For the rest of you, I’m not saying it’s not gettting warmer. Or even necessarily that man has not had something to do with it. But rather that the whole CO2 issue seems to be overhyped as part of the problem.

And for the scientific-minded among you, here’s a fun exercise. Go and pull the statistics on solar activity over the past thousand years or so. I’d do it for you, but apparently I’m not qualified according to Steve, who in all actuality knows next to nothing about me or what I am or am not qualified to do, and only knows that I won’t toe his party line and therefore should be discounted. Then compare those solar activity figures to the climate changes over the same period. Finally, see what correllates with climate change more: solar activity, or CO2 emmissions.

Of course, that would imply that the evil humans aren’t really destroying the planet, so I don’t really expect anyone to try it 😀

First what is the supposed combat radius of the Bear and Blackjack?

At the end of this article I’ve got the combat radii displayed in satellite imagery for the BEAR-H, BLACKJACK, and BACKFIRE.

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/07/russian-strategic-aviation-imagery.html