Anyone ID the planes or the AF?

[Paul Frankenstein]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9T51UsuaPU&search=Flying
--
paulf | Some days you're the bug;
@ | Some days you're the windshield.
panix | ------------------------------
.com | <http://paulfrankenstein.org/>

[Rufus]

Paul Frankenstein wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9T51UsuaPU&search=Flying

I thought someone said they were Mirage F1's...can't make out any
national markings.

--
- Rufus

[Claude]

Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:

> Paul Frankenstein wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9T51UsuaPU&search=Flying
>
> I thought someone said they were Mirage F1's...can't make out any
> national markings.

Planes are French Mirage F1's indeed, + a Puma on ground.
Location : Tchad, Moussoro Training field.

Claude

[Richard P. Grant]

Paul Frankenstein <***@x.x> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9T51UsuaPU&search=Flying

Dassault Mirage?

--
Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 RG Design
rpgrant at netspace.net.au http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/

All your basestation are belong to us

[Charles Kooij]

Richard P. Grant <***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> Paul Frankenstein <***@x.x> wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9T51UsuaPU&search=Flying
>
> Dassault Mirage?

I originally thought it might be a Super Etendard, but the tailplane is
different. The best match is the Mirage F1. The wings match, and so does
the location of the refueling thingy.

I can't figure out where it is, though. The markings don't look French,
the Israelis never operated the F1 (or the Puma, for that matter). I
can't help but think that it might be Iraqi. I'm sure I spotted a quick
green white and black marking on the Puma.

ck

[Charles Kooij]

Charles Kooij <***@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

> Richard P. Grant <***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Paul Frankenstein <***@x.x> wrote:
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9T51UsuaPU&search=Flying
> >
> > Dassault Mirage?
>
> I originally thought it might be a Super Etendard, but the tailplane is
> different. The best match is the Mirage F1. The wings match, and so does
> the location of the refueling thingy.
>
> I can't figure out where it is, though. The markings don't look French,
> the Israelis never operated the F1 (or the Puma, for that matter). I
> can't help but think that it might be Iraqi. I'm sure I spotted a quick
> green white and black marking on the Puma.

Spotted a silly hat unique to the South Africans on one of the blokes
standing by the Puma.

And someone in the comments for the video also suggest SA. They did/do
operate both the F1 and the Puma.

ck

[Richard P. Grant]

Charles Kooij <***@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> Richard P. Grant <***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Paul Frankenstein <***@x.x> wrote:
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9T51UsuaPU&search=Flying
>>
>> Dassault Mirage?
>
> I originally thought it might be a Super Etendard, but the tailplane is
> different. The best match is the Mirage F1. The wings match, and so does
> the location of the refueling thingy.

But they're bloody high, aren't they?

--
Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/
'. . . if the punters moan about the Internet being down because their
capslock is set, a guy in black clothing will give them a lump of coal
or just dump them in a burlap sack and drag them off to Spain.' -- AdB

[Charles Kooij]

Richard P. Grant <***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> Charles Kooij <***@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> > Richard P. Grant <***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Paul Frankenstein <***@x.x> wrote:
> >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9T51UsuaPU&search=Flying
> >>
> >> Dassault Mirage?
> >
> > I originally thought it might be a Super Etendard, but the tailplane is
> > different. The best match is the Mirage F1. The wings match, and so does
> > the location of the refueling thingy.
>
> But they're bloody high, aren't they?

Isn't that cruising altitude?

ck

[Richard P. Grant]

Charles Kooij <***@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> Richard P. Grant <***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Charles Kooij <***@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>> > Richard P. Grant <***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Paul Frankenstein <***@x.x> wrote:
>> >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9T51UsuaPU&search=Flying
>> >>
>> >> Dassault Mirage?
>> >
>> > I originally thought it might be a Super Etendard, but the tailplane is
>> > different. The best match is the Mirage F1. The wings match, and so does
>> > the location of the refueling thingy.
>>
>> But they're bloody high, aren't they?
>
> Isn't that cruising altitude?

HALO. We only fly that high when dropping grunts.


--
Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 RG Design
rpgrant at netspace.net.au http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/

Tedious and crusty nut tag, begone. - Bella Jones

[Rufus]

Richard P. Grant wrote:
> Charles Kooij <***@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>>Richard P. Grant <***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Charles Kooij <***@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Richard P. Grant <***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Paul Frankenstein <***@x.x> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9T51UsuaPU&search=Flying
>>>>>
>>>>>Dassault Mirage?
>>>>
>>>>I originally thought it might be a Super Etendard, but the tailplane is
>>>>different. The best match is the Mirage F1. The wings match, and so does
>>>>the location of the refueling thingy.
>>>
>>>But they're bloody high, aren't they?
>>
>>Isn't that cruising altitude?
>
>
> HALO. We only fly that high when dropping grunts.
>
>

I'd guess-timate that's about 160 to 200 feet AGL...pretty much basic
low level for an attack squadron.

I knew a former Marine that used to fly OA-10s...or OV-10s...I think.
Anyway, that had a proceedure that dumped them out the back from 500
feet AGL...ingress at 500 feet, pull into a sharp climb, and let the
grunts fall out the back on static lines. The excess airspeed would
open the chutes...good for getting a handfull of guys into a zone in a
hurry.

--
- Rufus

[Harro de Jong]

***@mchsi.com (Rufus) wrote in <4uHlg.38192$***@attbi_s71>:

>I'd guess-timate that's about 160 to 200 feet AGL...pretty much basic
>low level for an attack squadron.

Bah. "Low level" means single digits.
--
Harro de Jong
remove the extra Xs from xmsnet to mail me

[Charles Kooij]

Harro de Jong <***@xxxxmsnet.nl.invalid> wrote:

> ***@mchsi.com (Rufus) wrote in <4uHlg.38192$***@attbi_s71>:
>
> >I'd guess-timate that's about 160 to 200 feet AGL...pretty much basic
> >low level for an attack squadron.
>
> Bah. "Low level" means single digits.

Nonsense. Low level doesn't mean single digits at all. You can have as
many as you want. They just have to be after the decimal point.

:)

ck

[Rufus]

Harro de Jong wrote:

> ***@mchsi.com (Rufus) wrote in <4uHlg.38192$***@attbi_s71>:
>
>
>>I'd guess-timate that's about 160 to 200 feet AGL...pretty much basic
>>low level for an attack squadron.
>
>
> Bah. "Low level" means single digits.

I got down to about 4 feet at 505 TAS in a USMC Harrier sim
once...trying to straff a train head on...that low enough for ya?..

But seriously - roughly 200 feet AGL was at one time considered
"tactically safe".

--
- Rufus

[Richard P. Grant]

Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
> I got down to about 4 feet at 505 TAS in a USMC Harrier sim
> once...trying to straff a train head on...that low enough for ya?..
>
> But seriously - roughly 200 feet AGL was at one time considered
> "tactically safe".

Yeah, in about 1916.

--
Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 RG Design
rpgrant at netspace.net.au http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/
0000001010011010 - the Binarybeast

[Rufus]

Richard P. Grant wrote:

> Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>>I got down to about 4 feet at 505 TAS in a USMC Harrier sim
>>once...trying to straff a train head on...that low enough for ya?..
>>
>>But seriously - roughly 200 feet AGL was at one time considered
>>"tactically safe".
>
>
> Yeah, in about 1916.
>

No - as late as Gulf War 1, when I was working on Harriers. And
actually, as the film illustrates, some still practice.

--
- Rufus

[Michael Emrys]

in article 421mg.1034510$***@attbi_s21, Rufus at ***@mchsi.com
wrote on 6/20/06 6:12 PM:

> Richard P. Grant wrote:
>
>> Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But seriously - roughly 200 feet AGL was at one time considered
>>> "tactically safe".
>>
>> Yeah, in about 1916.
>>
> No - as late as Gulf War 1, when I was working on Harriers. And
> actually, as the film illustrates, some still practice.

Not only that, but as I recall, when the RAF chaps tried their low-level
stuff in Iraq they quickly discovered why the USAF preferred to do it above
15,000. The light caliber AAA was eating them alive.

Michael

[Richard P. Grant]

Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:
>
> Not only that, but as I recall, when the RAF chaps tried their low-level
> stuff in Iraq they quickly discovered why the USAF preferred to do it above
> 15,000. The light caliber AAA was eating them alive.

Heh, and http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/atrition.htm claims that a USAF F15
was taken out by AAA. I'll bet you dollars to cents that wasn't 'low
level'.

--
Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 RG Design
Twinkle, twinkle little star, I don't wonder what you are;
Because of spectroscopic gen, I know you're made of hydrogen.
Twinkle, twinkle little star, Now I know just what you are.

[Richard P. Grant]

Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:
> in article 421mg.1034510$***@attbi_s21, Rufus at ***@mchsi.com
> wrote on 6/20/06 6:12 PM:
>
>> Richard P. Grant wrote:
>>
>>> Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But seriously - roughly 200 feet AGL was at one time considered
>>>> "tactically safe".
>>>
>>> Yeah, in about 1916.
>>>
>> No - as late as Gulf War 1, when I was working on Harriers. And
>> actually, as the film illustrates, some still practice.

Although against a sophisticated enemy (i.e. one with post-Vietnam
technology) you're not safe above 50ft. The Harriers in the Falklands
conflict (1982) went in at 50ft and below; their losses [0] speak volumes.

> Not only that, but as I recall, when the RAF chaps tried their low-level
> stuff in Iraq they quickly discovered why the USAF preferred to do it above
> 15,000. The light caliber AAA was eating them alive.

See above - the tactics the RAF employed in GW1 were designed to be
effective against a reasonable level of technology. Unfortunately, the
enemy hadn't read the manual (q.v. JP233 and similar against sand
runways). The other side of the coin is that 15k ft is *suicide* against
any half-way decent SA capability [1].

The RAF weren't ready for a war in Iraq. Years of budget cuts meant
(and the *slaughtering* they received post-Wall) that they had to
concentrate on the perceived more immediate threat - which was Warsaw
Pact forces. So they concentrated on high-speed, low-level stand-off
tactics with a side order of instant sunshine.

Oh, and by the way Michael, I just looked it up. The RAF lost 6 (six)
Tornado GR1s (the major low level strike aircraft we used) in GW1. Two
at most were lost to AAA, three to SAM, one to faulty ordnance. Hardly
'eaten alive'. See http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2005/c4/table47.html
and link therein.

[0] Zero to AAA.
[1] And indeed, trigger-happy so-called 'friendlies'.

--
Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 RG Design
rpgrant at netspace.net.au http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/
[It's] a sig block, anyone who takes it seriously is a dork - MMcI, ucsm

[Michael Emrys]

in article fginm3-***@news.rg-d.com, Richard P. Grant at
***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid wrote on 6/21/06 3:09 AM:

> Oh, and by the way Michael, I just looked it up. The RAF lost 6 (six)
> Tornado GR1s (the major low level strike aircraft we used) in GW1. Two
> at most were lost to AAA, three to SAM, one to faulty ordnance. Hardly
> 'eaten alive'.

But IIRC their loss rates on the first couple of days of the campaign, when
they were still using the low-level attacks, were unacceptably high. Once
they gave up using low-level attacks, their losses dropped off to nil.

Michael

[Rufus]

Michael Emrys wrote:

> in article fginm3-***@news.rg-d.com, Richard P. Grant at
> ***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid wrote on 6/21/06 3:09 AM:
>
>
>>Oh, and by the way Michael, I just looked it up. The RAF lost 6 (six)
>>Tornado GR1s (the major low level strike aircraft we used) in GW1. Two
>>at most were lost to AAA, three to SAM, one to faulty ordnance. Hardly
>>'eaten alive'.
>
>
> But IIRC their loss rates on the first couple of days of the campaign, when
> they were still using the low-level attacks, were unacceptably high. Once
> they gave up using low-level attacks, their losses dropped off to nil.
>
> Michael
>

Again, as I recall most of those initial losses weren't shooting losses
- but CFIT losses. At least that's what the Harrier guys in theater
were telling me.

--
- Rufus

[Richard P. Grant]

Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Michael Emrys wrote:
>> But IIRC their loss rates on the first couple of days of the campaign, when
>> they were still using the low-level attacks, were unacceptably high. Once
>> they gave up using low-level attacks, their losses dropped off to nil.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>
> Again, as I recall most of those initial losses weren't shooting losses
> - but CFIT losses. At least that's what the Harrier guys in theater
> were telling me.

Look at the investigation!

That second link I gave gives the sudden deceleration syndrome losses for
the coalition, and none of those 6 Tornados (well, possibly one) were lost
to it.

The other thing people are missing is that by the time they switched to
the medium level tictacs all SAM was essentially suppressed!

--
Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 RG Design
rpgrant at netspace.net.au http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/

Aha! no wonder mine doesn't taste of aluminium... - Bella Jones

[Rufus]

Richard P. Grant wrote:
> Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>>Michael Emrys wrote:
>>
>>>But IIRC their loss rates on the first couple of days of the campaign, when
>>>they were still using the low-level attacks, were unacceptably high. Once
>>>they gave up using low-level attacks, their losses dropped off to nil.
>>>
>>>Michael
>>>
>>
>>Again, as I recall most of those initial losses weren't shooting losses
>>- but CFIT losses. At least that's what the Harrier guys in theater
>>were telling me.
>
>
> Look at the investigation!
>
> That second link I gave gives the sudden deceleration syndrome losses for
> the coalition, and none of those 6 Tornados (well, possibly one) were lost
> to it.
>
> The other thing people are missing is that by the time they switched to
> the medium level tictacs all SAM was essentially suppressed!
>


Hmmnnn...point taken. Both of them.

I know that my USMC Harrier driving pals were expressing a great deal of
concern over RAF losses - particularly amongst the Toronado crews. They
were doing a great deal of the SAM supression, and low leveling across
the desert. I know I still have the impression of Toronado drivers
being low flyers to this day - at least they're certainly prone to it
when they come out my way...

Maybe it's also because I saw that German crew killed...clipped the top
of a trailer.

--
- Rufus

[Rufus]

Richard P. Grant wrote:

> Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:
>
>>in article 421mg.1034510$***@attbi_s21, Rufus at ***@mchsi.com
>>wrote on 6/20/06 6:12 PM:
>>
>>
>>>Richard P. Grant wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But seriously - roughly 200 feet AGL was at one time considered
>>>>>"tactically safe".
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, in about 1916.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No - as late as Gulf War 1, when I was working on Harriers. And
>>>actually, as the film illustrates, some still practice.
>
>
> Although against a sophisticated enemy (i.e. one with post-Vietnam
> technology) you're not safe above 50ft. The Harriers in the Falklands
> conflict (1982) went in at 50ft and below; their losses [0] speak volumes.
>
>
>>Not only that, but as I recall, when the RAF chaps tried their low-level
>>stuff in Iraq they quickly discovered why the USAF preferred to do it above
>>15,000. The light caliber AAA was eating them alive.
>
>
> See above - the tactics the RAF employed in GW1 were designed to be
> effective against a reasonable level of technology. Unfortunately, the
> enemy hadn't read the manual (q.v. JP233 and similar against sand
> runways). The other side of the coin is that 15k ft is *suicide* against
> any half-way decent SA capability [1].
>
> The RAF weren't ready for a war in Iraq. Years of budget cuts meant
> (and the *slaughtering* they received post-Wall) that they had to
> concentrate on the perceived more immediate threat - which was Warsaw
> Pact forces. So they concentrated on high-speed, low-level stand-off
> tactics with a side order of instant sunshine.
>
> Oh, and by the way Michael, I just looked it up. The RAF lost 6 (six)
> Tornado GR1s (the major low level strike aircraft we used) in GW1. Two
> at most were lost to AAA, three to SAM, one to faulty ordnance. Hardly
> 'eaten alive'. See http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2005/c4/table47.html
> and link therein.
>
> [0] Zero to AAA.
> [1] And indeed, trigger-happy so-called 'friendlies'.
>

Good case. Theater dictates tactical requirements. So train for
everything.

--
- Rufus

[Richard P. Grant]

Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> Good case. Theater dictates tactical requirements. So train for
> everything.

See my point about money.

--
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I
thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible
things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I
take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.
-- Marcus to Franklin in B5: A Late Delivery from Avalon

[Rufus]

Richard P. Grant wrote:

> Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>>Good case. Theater dictates tactical requirements. So train for
>>everything.
>
>
> See my point about money.
>

Yup - it's always about the money. Money may limit requirements, but it
doesn't (or shouldn't) drive them in the final event...fall short with
one and you'll probably fall short with the other.

--
- Rufus

[Richard P. Grant]

Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Richard P. Grant wrote:
>
>> Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Good case. Theater dictates tactical requirements. So train for
>>>everything.
>>
>>
>> See my point about money.
>>
>
> Yup - it's always about the money. Money may limit requirements, but it
> doesn't (or shouldn't) drive them in the final event...fall short with
> one and you'll probably fall short with the other.
>

You're preaching to the choir, brother.

--
Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 RG Design
rpgrant at netspace.net.au http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/

Mach' es wie die Sonnenuhr, z?hl' die sch?nen Stunden nur.

[Michael Emrys]

in article th1qm3-***@news.rg-d.com, Richard P. Grant at
***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid wrote on 6/22/06 1:38 AM:

> Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yup - it's always about the money. Money may limit requirements, but it
>> doesn't (or shouldn't) drive them in the final event...fall short with
>> one and you'll probably fall short with the other.
>
> You're preaching to the choir, brother.

But then again, there is only so much money in the budget, and it has to pay
for a lot of things besides the armed forces. So we're left with basically
two choices, drastically increase taxes on the wealthy (including wealthy
corporations) or make do with what we have. To bleed a nation's economy
white in order to have everything the generals can dream up would be the
tail wagging the dog.

It's all a calculated risk, isn't it? Armed forces try to prepare for who
they think their next enemy will be and what they think that enemy will be
doing, and always there are a lot of surprises when the balloon does finally
go up.

Michael

[Rufus]

Michael Emrys wrote:
> in article th1qm3-***@news.rg-d.com, Richard P. Grant at
> ***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid wrote on 6/22/06 1:38 AM:
>
>
>>Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yup - it's always about the money. Money may limit requirements, but it
>>>doesn't (or shouldn't) drive them in the final event...fall short with
>>>one and you'll probably fall short with the other.
>>
>>You're preaching to the choir, brother.
>
>
> But then again, there is only so much money in the budget, and it has to pay
> for a lot of things besides the armed forces. So we're left with basically
> two choices, drastically increase taxes on the wealthy (including wealthy
> corporations) or make do with what we have. To bleed a nation's economy
> white in order to have everything the generals can dream up would be the
> tail wagging the dog.
>
> It's all a calculated risk, isn't it? Armed forces try to prepare for who
> they think their next enemy will be and what they think that enemy will be
> doing, and always there are a lot of surprises when the balloon does finally
> go up.
>
> Michael
>

...I could say the same thing about proping up the poor...whoops...just did.

But I'd also wager that's one reason not to listen to generals...listen
to the guys on the ground. And if a nation doesn't think that those
lives are worth the cost of support, then maybe that nation deserves
what it gets.

--
- Rufus

[PeterD]

Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:

> But I'd also wager that's one reason not to listen to generals...listen
> to the guys on the ground.

If that dickhead Rumsfeld had listened to either the generals or the
guys on the ground, Iraq wouldn't be in the mess it's in right now.

--
Pd

[Richard P. Grant]

PeterD <***@dsl.pipex.invalid> wrote:
> Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> But I'd also wager that's one reason not to listen to generals...listen
>> to the guys on the ground.
>
> If that dickhead Rumsfeld had listened to either the generals or the
> guys on the ground, Iraq wouldn't be in the mess it's in right now.

Hah.

Nice to see you again, PeterLoudTrousers.

--
Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/
The only problem with Stanislav Grof M.D. is that he may,
inconveniently, exist. Very much better for all concerned
if he did not. - Peter Ceresole in ucsm

[PeterD]

Richard P. Grant <***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> Nice to see you again, PeterLoudTrousers.

I only stick my neck in here to see what version of the truth you're
purveying today.

That sounded nasty, whereas I meant it with deep affection.

--
Pd

[Richard P. Grant]

PeterD <***@dsl.pipex.invalid> wrote:
> Richard P. Grant <***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Nice to see you again, PeterLoudTrousers.
>
> I only stick my neck in here to see what version of the truth you're
> purveying today.
>
> That sounded nasty, whereas I meant it with deep affection.

Of course you did.

Bastard.


--
So if Apple legal don't take them on, [CherryOS] might have trouble
with the open source guys (I don't know what trouble with open source
guys actually is like, I guess they just write nasty things about them
in their blogs). -- Woody in ucsm

[Richard P. Grant]

Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:
>
> But then again, there is only so much money in the budget, and it has to pay
> for a lot of things besides the armed forces. So we're left with basically
> two choices, drastically increase taxes on the wealthy (including wealthy
> corporations) or make do with what we have. To bleed a nation's economy
> white in order to have everything the generals can dream up would be the
> tail wagging the dog.

Except that I'd dispute that point of view. As PeterD points out, it
wasn't the generals who wanted the war (either of them) in Iraq. In our
democracies war is extension of politics. And it is the politicians who
send our armed services to fight, not the generals. It is the
government's fault if the armed services are ill-prepared for an elective
action.


--
> the result, if there is one, depends on how and how fast you approach zero.
So if you creep up on zero slowly and quietly enough, preferably from downwind
with appropriate camouflage and sufficient firepower, you should be able to
divide by it? - OG and AdB in the Monastery

[Michael Emrys]

in article 85jvm3-***@news.rg-d.com, Richard P. Grant at
***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid wrote on 6/24/06 4:10 AM:

> Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:
>>
>> But then again, there is only so much money in the budget, and it has to pay
>> for a lot of things besides the armed forces. So we're left with basically
>> two choices, drastically increase taxes on the wealthy (including wealthy
>> corporations) or make do with what we have. To bleed a nation's economy
>> white in order to have everything the generals can dream up would be the
>> tail wagging the dog.
>
> Except that I'd dispute that point of view. As PeterD points out, it
> wasn't the generals who wanted the war (either of them) in Iraq. In our
> democracies war is extension of politics. And it is the politicians who
> send our armed services to fight, not the generals. It is the
> government's fault if the armed services are ill-prepared for an elective
> action.

I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote, since I don't disagree with
your statement. I was just talking about something else, namely acquisition
of weaponry.

BTW, democracies aren't the only governments where war is an extension of
politics. They nearly all are.

Michael

[Charles Kooij]

Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:

>
> BTW, democracies aren't the only governments where war is an extension of
> politics. They nearly all are.


I am intrigued by your use of the word 'nearly'. I can't think of any
system of government where politics isn't an extension of war.

ck

[Charles Kooij]

Charles Kooij <***@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

> Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > BTW, democracies aren't the only governments where war is an extension of
> > politics. They nearly all are.
>
>
> I am intrigued by your use of the word 'nearly'. I can't think of any
> system of government where politics isn't an extension of war.

I did, of course, mean, 'where war isn't an extension of politics'.

ck

[Michael Emrys]

in article 1hhhujg.x1sc3q8j3fk0N%***@spamgourmet.com,
Charles Kooij at ***@spamgourmet.com wrote on 6/24/06
10:19 PM:

> I did, of course, mean, 'where war isn't an extension of politics'.

Okay.

Well, I was thinking of those few societies where war is pursued for its own
sake. Curiously enough, Hitlerite Germany is one of those funny borderline
cases that you could almost make out to fall into that category. At least it
seems that in Hitler's mind that might have been the case. But he had so
many loose wires it's hard to say for sure.

Michael

[Rufus]

Charles Kooij wrote:
> Charles Kooij <***@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>BTW, democracies aren't the only governments where war is an extension of
>>>politics. They nearly all are.
>>
>>
>>I am intrigued by your use of the word 'nearly'. I can't think of any
>>system of government where politics isn't an extension of war.
>
>
> I did, of course, mean, 'where war isn't an extension of politics'.
>
> ck

I think you got it right the first time...

--
- Rufus

[Charles Kooij]

Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:

> Charles Kooij wrote:
> > Charles Kooij <***@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>BTW, democracies aren't the only governments where war is an extension of
> >>>politics. They nearly all are.
> >>
> >>
> >>I am intrigued by your use of the word 'nearly'. I can't think of any
> >>system of government where politics isn't an extension of war.
> >
> >
> > I did, of course, mean, 'where war isn't an extension of politics'.
> >
> > ck
>
> I think you got it right the first time...


You know, I think you're right. It is a shame - the world could be such
a nice place. You'd have thought that we would have learned after WWI &
II.

ck

[Michael Emrys]

in article 1hhi2ly.1bzabgrccwhc0N%***@spamgourmet.com,
Charles Kooij at ***@spamgourmet.com wrote on 6/25/06
1:15 AM:

> You'd have thought that we would have learned after WWI & II.

The urge to fight seems to overpower all reason sometimes. Not to deny that
sometimes fighting is the more reasonable course. But look at how ready we
are to do it even when it is not. People are crazy.

Michael

[Rufus]

Michael Emrys wrote:
> in article 1hhi2ly.1bzabgrccwhc0N%***@spamgourmet.com,
> Charles Kooij at ***@spamgourmet.com wrote on 6/25/06
> 1:15 AM:
>
>
>>You'd have thought that we would have learned after WWI & II.
>
>
> The urge to fight seems to overpower all reason sometimes. Not to deny that
> sometimes fighting is the more reasonable course. But look at how ready we
> are to do it even when it is not. People are crazy.
>
> Michael
>

..."a person is smart, people are stupid".

I forget what movie that line comes from...

--
- Rufus

[Michael Emrys]

in article 1hhhtyk.1cj1vxi1yvgtk8N%***@spamgourmet.com,
Charles Kooij at ***@spamgourmet.com wrote on 6/24/06
10:07 PM:

> I can't think of any system of government where politics isn't an extension of
> war.

Didn't you get that reversed? Is that another symptom of living on the
underside of the world?

;-)

Michael

[Charles Kooij]

Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:

> in article 1hhhtyk.1cj1vxi1yvgtk8N%***@spamgourmet.com,
> Charles Kooij at ***@spamgourmet.com wrote on 6/24/06
> 10:07 PM:
>
> > I can't think of any system of government where politics isn't an extension
> of
> > war.
>
> Didn't you get that reversed? Is that another symptom of living on the
> underside of the world?


I like to think of it as the world's bottom. :)

[Michael Emrys]

in article 1hhi2kp.1k66z5n1p3w83qN%***@spamgourmet.com,
Charles Kooij at ***@spamgourmet.com wrote on 6/25/06
1:15 AM:

> I like to think of it as the world's bottom. :)

Y'know, that's what I originally wrote. I changed it because I felt that
'underside' sounded so much more sinister. But I can see your point.

:-D

Michael

[Paul Frankenstein]

In article <C0C2E80B.2898F%***@olypen.com>,
Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:
* BTW, democracies aren't the only governments where war is an extension of
* politics. They nearly all are.

Occasionally, even in democracies, it's the other way around.


--
paulf | Some days you're the bug;
@ | Some days you're the windshield.
panix | ------------------------------
.com | <http://paulfrankenstein.org/>

[Rufus]

Michael Emrys wrote:
> in article 421mg.1034510$***@attbi_s21, Rufus at ***@mchsi.com
> wrote on 6/20/06 6:12 PM:
>
>
>>Richard P. Grant wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>But seriously - roughly 200 feet AGL was at one time considered
>>>>"tactically safe".
>>>
>>>Yeah, in about 1916.
>>>
>>
>>No - as late as Gulf War 1, when I was working on Harriers. And
>>actually, as the film illustrates, some still practice.
>
>
> Not only that, but as I recall, when the RAF chaps tried their low-level
> stuff in Iraq they quickly discovered why the USAF preferred to do it above
> 15,000. The light caliber AAA was eating them alive.
>
> Michael
>

The RAF also suffered number off losses due to CFIT - Controlled Flight
Into Terrain. I've also wittessed the Germans do the same on our local
ranges - Toronadoes in the mishaps for both the RAF and the Germans.
From what I reacall the PIREPs were that flying over the open desert
was a bit like flying over glassy water - lack of depth perception.

There are however (still) circumstances under which such flying is the
proper countertactic. That's why people still train to low level flying
in peacetime environs.

--
- Rufus

[Michael Emrys]

in article 8kXlg.39244$***@attbi_s71, Rufus at ***@mchsi.com
wrote on 6/20/06 11:42 AM:

> I got down to about 4 feet at 505 TAS in a USMC Harrier sim
> once...trying to straff a train head on...that low enough for ya?..

Here's a guy flying at about that level on his pullout.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2PvcG4Vmyw

Michael

[Pd]

Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:

> Here's a guy flying at about that level on his pullout.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2PvcG4Vmyw

That's pretty scary, especially given what happened at Shoreham a couple
of weeks ago.

Also at the Shoreham Airshow, they were letting people go inside the
PBY. I sat in there for nearly an hour, in various place from the
cockpit, through the wing mast and next to the blisters, just breathing
in that old aircraft smell. Fantastic aeroplane.

This is cool:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYPxZmV-3_o>

--
Pd

[Michael Emrys]

in article 1i55au3.mqwmym1qqn808N%***@dsl.pipex.invalid, Pd at
***@dsl.pipex.invalid wrote on 9/28/07 2:11 AM:

> That's pretty scary, especially given what happened at Shoreham a couple
> of weeks ago.

What was that?

> Also at the Shoreham Airshow, they were letting people go inside the
> PBY. I sat in there for nearly an hour, in various place from the
> cockpit, through the wing mast and next to the blisters, just breathing
> in that old aircraft smell. Fantastic aeroplane.

I once dreamed of starting a tiny regional airline using a PBY or two.

Two or three weeks back I spotted a civilianized SA-16
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/sa-16_albatross.pl flying fairly low
and slow over my town.

Michael

[Pd]

Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:

> in article 1i55au3.mqwmym1qqn808N%***@dsl.pipex.invalid, Pd at
> ***@dsl.pipex.invalid wrote on 9/28/07 2:11 AM:
>
> > That's pretty scary, especially given what happened at Shoreham a couple
> > of weeks ago.
>
> What was that?

Brian Brown from the Real Aeroplane Company at Breighton crashed and
died in Hurricane BD707. Sad indeed.

> > Also at the Shoreham Airshow, they were letting people go inside the
> > PBY. I sat in there for nearly an hour, in various place from the
> > cockpit, through the wing mast and next to the blisters, just breathing
> > in that old aircraft smell. Fantastic aeroplane.
>
> I once dreamed of starting a tiny regional airline using a PBY or two.
>
> Two or three weeks back I spotted a civilianized SA-16
> http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/sa-16_albatross.pl flying fairly low
> and slow over my town.

Always envious of Jimmy Buffett for flying his own Albatross.

I used to fly out of Mechanics Bay in Auckland in the Grumman Widgeons
flown by Mount Cook Airlines, when I was geologising on the Hauraki Gulf
islands. The thrill of water take-offs and landings never paled.

--
Pd

[Michael Emrys]

in article 1i575kq.1a3scti13zz9vcN%***@dsl.pipex.invalid, Pd at
***@dsl.pipex.invalid wrote on 9/29/07 2:13 AM:

> Always envious of Jimmy Buffett for flying his own Albatross.

Was it an Albatross? Somehow I had the idea that his plane was a Seabee. I
think I sold my copy of "A Pirate Looks at Fifty" so I can't look it up.

Michael

[Pd]

Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:

> in article 1i575kq.1a3scti13zz9vcN%***@dsl.pipex.invalid, Pd at
> ***@dsl.pipex.invalid wrote on 9/29/07 2:13 AM:
>
> > Always envious of Jimmy Buffett for flying his own Albatross.
>
> Was it an Albatross? Somehow I had the idea that his plane was a Seabee. I
> think I sold my copy of "A Pirate Looks at Fifty" so I can't look it up.

<http://www.buffettworld.com/airplanes_albatross.html>

He also owns/owned a Lake Renegade, Cessna Citation, Falcon 50, Falcon
900, Boeing Stearman and Cessna 208 Caravan floatplane.

Hmmm.

--
Pd

[Michael Emrys]

in article 1i57vvg.65ursvc2rzrdN%***@dsl.pipex.invalid, Pd at
***@dsl.pipex.invalid wrote on 9/29/07 11:43 AM:

> <http://www.buffettworld.com/airplanes_albatross.html>

Thanks. Looks comfortable. That's what I like about these larger seaplanes,
there's room to hang a hammock. :-)

> He also owns/owned a Lake Renegade, Cessna Citation, Falcon 50, Falcon
> 900, Boeing Stearman and Cessna 208 Caravan floatplane.

Sounds like he means to start his own air force or something.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

in article 1i575kq.1a3scti13zz9vcN%***@dsl.pipex.invalid, Pd at
***@dsl.pipex.invalid wrote on 9/29/07 2:13 AM:

> Always envious of Jimmy Buffett for flying his own Albatross.

And speaking of Albatrosses, here's a particularly slick one caught at
Oshkosh last July.

http://dosomefink.com/mkportal/modules/gallery/album/a_514.jpg

There are a whole bunch more pics of some very cool planes on that site.
Start here:

http://dosomefink.com/index.php?ind=gallery&op=section_view&idev=5

Michael

[Paul Frankenstein]

In article <C32514DA.700%***@olypen.com>,
Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:
* in article 1i57vvg.65ursvc2rzrdN%***@dsl.pipex.invalid, Pd at
* ***@dsl.pipex.invalid wrote on 9/29/07 11:43 AM:
*
* > <http://www.buffettworld.com/airplanes_albatross.html>
*
* Thanks. Looks comfortable. That's what I like about these larger seaplanes,
* there's room to hang a hammock. :-)
*
* > He also owns/owned a Lake Renegade, Cessna Citation, Falcon 50, Falcon
* > 900, Boeing Stearman and Cessna 208 Caravan floatplane.
*
* Sounds like he means to start his own air force or something.

Yeah, but until he perfects margarita-based nuclear fusion, I wouldn't worry
too much.

[Michael Emrys]

in article ***@62.58.50.216, Harro de Jong at
***@xxxxmsnet.nl.invalid wrote on 6/19/06 11:55 PM:

> ***@mchsi.com (Rufus) wrote in <4uHlg.38192$***@attbi_s71>:
>
>> I'd guess-timate that's about 160 to 200 feet AGL...pretty much basic
>> low level for an attack squadron.
>
> Bah. "Low level" means single digits.

You, uh, don't object to losing pilots and airplanes to their own ordnance
then?

Michael

[Richard P. Grant]

Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:
> in article ***@62.58.50.216, Harro de Jong at
> ***@xxxxmsnet.nl.invalid wrote on 6/19/06 11:55 PM:
>
>> ***@mchsi.com (Rufus) wrote in <4uHlg.38192$***@attbi_s71>:
>>
>>> I'd guess-timate that's about 160 to 200 feet AGL...pretty much basic
>>> low level for an attack squadron.
>>
>> Bah. "Low level" means single digits.
>
> You, uh, don't object to losing pilots and airplanes to their own ordnance
> then?

'stand off'

--
> I've got more interested since the accident. I guess it's my way of
> coping, but even before that I was learning more about the engine and
> stuff. I have the urge to tinker.
That's what Oppenheimer said. - JCA, via email

[Richard P. Grant]

Rufus <***@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> I'd guess-timate that's about 160 to 200 feet AGL...pretty much basic
> low level for an attack squadron.

Wingco gets altitude sickness that high.

--
And so at last the beast fell and the unbelievers rejoiced. But all was not
lost, for from the ash rose a great bird. The bird gazed down upon the
unbelievers and cast fire and thunder upon them. For the beast had been reborn
with its strength renewed, and the followers of Mammon cowered in horror.

[Harro de Jong]

Richard P. Grant <***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> Wingco gets altitude sickness that high.

So, now that you're on the bottom of the globe: are altimeters
calibrated in negative numbers over there?
--
Harro de Jong
remove the extra Xs from xmsnet to mail me

[Michael Emrys]

in article 1hh8v3i.6bjyfk1uunxicN%***@xxxxmsnet.nl.invalid, Harro de
Jong at ***@xxxxmsnet.nl.invalid wrote on 6/20/06 9:54 AM:

> Richard P. Grant <***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Wingco gets altitude sickness that high.
>
> So, now that you're on the bottom of the globe: are altimeters
> calibrated in negative numbers over there?

The great thing is that navigation is easier since the ground is always
directly overhead.

Michael

[Richard P. Grant]

Michael Emrys <***@olypen.com> wrote:
> in article 1hh8v3i.6bjyfk1uunxicN%***@xxxxmsnet.nl.invalid, Harro de
> Jong at ***@xxxxmsnet.nl.invalid wrote on 6/20/06 9:54 AM:
>
>> Richard P. Grant <***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Wingco gets altitude sickness that high.
>>
>> So, now that you're on the bottom of the globe: are altimeters
>> calibrated in negative numbers over there?
>

Er, remind me - which is the altimeter, again?

> The great thing is that navigation is easier since the ground is always
> directly overhead.

This is true.

But the maps are all upside down.

--
Richard P. Grant 0x5F9559B1 RG Design
rpgrant at netspace.net.au http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/

Real men don't have backups, but they cry a lot.

[Harro de Jong]

***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid (Richard P. Grant) wrote in
<afhnm3-***@news.rg-d.com>:

>Er, remind me - which is the altimeter, again?

The one instrument always pegged at 0, unless replaced by RVAF-issue high-
resolution instruments.

--
Harro de Jong
remove the extra Xs from xmsnet to mail me

[Michael Emrys]

in article ***@62.58.50.216, Harro de Jong at
***@xxxxmsnet.nl.invalid wrote on 6/21/06 4:16 AM:

> ***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid (Richard P. Grant) wrote in
> <afhnm3-***@news.rg-d.com>:
>
>> Er, remind me - which is the altimeter, again?
>
> The one instrument always pegged at 0, unless replaced by RVAF-issue high-
> resolution instruments.

Cf. paper by Igor Simonize, "Practical Aspects of Subterranean Supersonic
Flight".

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

in article afhnm3-***@news.rg-d.com, Richard P. Grant at
***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid wrote on 6/21/06 2:52 AM:

> But the maps are all upside down.

Well of course they are upside down! What would you expect. They've all got
their heads on backwards down there anyway and that's the only way they can
read them. Just hold them up to a mirror and you'll be fine.

Michael

[Nigel Eastmond]

In article <r51dm3-***@news.rg-d.com>,
***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid (Richard P. Grant) wrote:

> Paul Frankenstein <***@x.x> wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9T51UsuaPU&search=Flying
>
> Dassault Mirage?

Yes. Having saif that, given the variants, "Dassault Mirage" is rather
like seeing a car and saying "Ford?"

Think Claude it right. It;s an F1, notable by the high wing and sweep.

Nige.

--
Nigel C Eastmond
***@kidneys.mac.com
http://web.mac.com/nigeleastmond/iWeb/
Remove the bodily organs from my email address to reply

[Nigel Eastmond]

In article <r51dm3-***@news.rg-d.com>,
***@yahoo.co.uk.invalid (Richard P. Grant) wrote:

> Paul Frankenstein <***@x.x> wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9T51UsuaPU&search=Flying
>
> Dassault Mirage?

Halfway through the vid. THINK these might be South African.

Nige,

--
Nigel C Eastmond
***@kidneys.mac.com
http://web.mac.com/nigeleastmond/iWeb/
Remove the bodily organs from my email address to reply