Posted by Schiffner on April 14, 2009, 9:19 pm
> Schiffner wrote:
> >> Schiffner wrote:
> >>>> That paragraph sums up why it's happening....thats political logic. :)
> >>>> Short term saving vs. long term gain.
> >>> Stating the obvious... Anyway allowing for the spurious low observable
> >>> aspects of the F-22 is there anything it does that a F-15 with new
> >>> avionics and engines can't do and in some cases do better? Watch it
> >>> sparky I know more than you think I do. For instance, everything the
> >>> F-22 has avionics wise can be installed/adapted to the F-15. Engines?
> >>> Hello it's just hotrodding people and the tech from the ones for the
> >>> F-22 can be built into the GE F-100's currently in the F-15 series of
> >>> aircraft. The Eagle capable of air-to-ground attack. The F-22 is not.
> >>> What the US started with the F-16 has gone horribly arwy.
> >>> Then again I've always felt the best fighter and ground attack were
> >>> built prior to the jet age. 8^) Luddites RULE technophiles drool on
> >>> their i-pods.
> >>> --
> >>> Keith
> >> Surely not a bi-plane!!.....
> > Funny I never new you were related to a crew member of the Bismark,
> > several captains of the German Navy of that era had the same response
> > when THEY were sunk by a silly old bi-plane. For that matter Americas
> > three best attack/bombers are sub-sonic. On of them is ancient by
> > todays standards and still does what new designs can't do.
> > --
> > Keith
> As long as they were equipped with the latest anti-missile technology, I
> can't see any reason not to un-mothball a few of the older bombers. You
> have total air superiority anyway? It's not like the Al-Queda airforce
> is a threat! :)
I should correct a small error...The A-10, F-117, B-52. There are
others sitting around gathering dust like the A-7 and the S-3 Hoover.
With the stand off altitudes all could use typically available ground
to air heat seeking missles have no chance except to waste missles.
8^) Me I'd be puttin the A-1D Skyraider back into production with
modern avionics but keep the radial as it gives greater range/loiter
time compared to a turbo prop.
--
Keith
Posted by .p.jm on April 11, 2009, 3:00 pm
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:40:47 -0500, "MikeWhy"
>> Therein lies the pity.
>> The government is the people. If the people have given up control of
>> government then that is a real shame.
>Yup. We can agree fully here.
'The People' haven't had control of their government in my
lifetime, in the USA.
Our government is controlled by the people at the top of our
'power / wealth structure' ( which are one and the same ).
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/
Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
Posted by MikeWhy on April 11, 2009, 4:30 pm
>> Is there no room in a government's bureacracy to improve efficiency?
>> Is there no waste or corruption that can be removed without larger
>> detriment? It seems an obvious place to start.
> Of course there is.
> But, improving efficiency in government causes people to lose jobs,
> causes people to have poorer access to programs and causes some programs
> to be curtailed altogether.
Yeah, I understood from your earlier writing that you felt this. Is this the
key issue for you, then?
It isn't right, Bob. Government service shouldn't be a hidden form of
welfare. Reagan tried it in CA, with the emphasis slanted the other way, so
it's not a new thought. Even then, it was a bridge for those who've fallen
on hard times. No problem here with that, or at least no more so than with
any other kind of welfare. But extend that and you'll soon find mostly the
unfit and unemployable in government service. Even so, they don't bother me
so much as real corruption and real misuse of trust and power.
Setting that aside for the moment, as an individual, I am extremely careful
with my investments, who I hire in the work place, and who I invite to bid
for work on my home. I shop carefully for price and quality in tools and
appliances. Shouldn't I expect the same level of care of public money and
resources? Should I be bothered that clumsy plumbers and slovenly house
painters go hungry or are "forced" into unskilled labor pools? I think
you'll offer little argument that this should be my right. Why, then, should
we expect less of our government than from ourselves?
Posted by Chuck Rhode on April 11, 2009, 11:10 pm
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:33:40 +0000, Bob Mann wrote:
> ... improving efficiency in government causes people to lose jobs,
> causes people to have poorer access to programs and causes some
> programs to be curtailed altogether.
Right! Instead of slicing the governmental services pie thinner so
more people get a slice, we should grow a bigger pie!
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 29° — Wind NNW 3 mph
Posted by Bob Mann on April 12, 2009, 10:20 am
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:33:40 +0000, Bob Mann wrote:
>
>> ... improving efficiency in government causes people to lose jobs,
>> causes people to have poorer access to programs and causes some
>> programs to be curtailed altogether.
>
> Right! Instead of slicing the governmental services pie thinner so
> more people get a slice, we should grow a bigger pie!
>
I like pie.
Bigger is better sometimes isn't it?
I'm all for efficiency but I've seen what happens when government is
trimmed just for the sake of trimming.
It hasn't often gone well.
It has to be done slowly and with the object of growing the private sector.
Without incentive to grow the savings are usually just kept in a few
pockets.
--
Bob Mann
Cap'n, ah need moor pow'r.
XML Sitemap
> >> Schiffner wrote:
> >>>> That paragraph sums up why it's happening....thats political logic. :)
> >>>> Short term saving vs. long term gain.
> >>> Stating the obvious... Anyway allowing for the spurious low observable
> >>> aspects of the F-22 is there anything it does that a F-15 with new
> >>> avionics and engines can't do and in some cases do better? Watch it
> >>> sparky I know more than you think I do. For instance, everything the
> >>> F-22 has avionics wise can be installed/adapted to the F-15. Engines?
> >>> Hello it's just hotrodding people and the tech from the ones for the
> >>> F-22 can be built into the GE F-100's currently in the F-15 series of
> >>> aircraft. The Eagle capable of air-to-ground attack. The F-22 is not.
> >>> What the US started with the F-16 has gone horribly arwy.
> >>> Then again I've always felt the best fighter and ground attack were
> >>> built prior to the jet age. 8^) Luddites RULE technophiles drool on
> >>> their i-pods.
> >>> --
> >>> Keith
> >> Surely not a bi-plane!!.....
> > Funny I never new you were related to a crew member of the Bismark,
> > several captains of the German Navy of that era had the same response
> > when THEY were sunk by a silly old bi-plane. For that matter Americas
> > three best attack/bombers are sub-sonic. On of them is ancient by
> > todays standards and still does what new designs can't do.
> > --
> > Keith
> As long as they were equipped with the latest anti-missile technology, I
> can't see any reason not to un-mothball a few of the older bombers. You
> have total air superiority anyway? It's not like the Al-Queda airforce
> is a threat! :)