DelightMachine
Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline
|
Art, leave it to you to bring home to to this submissive the pleasures of sadism
First I shall delight myself with this sweet quote:
quote:
Wow, can you name that mystical bomber that uses super fuel and mega effecient engines to do THAT bombing run?
Get serious.
I believe others have provided the names. (Thanks, Caitlyn)
That was lip-smacking good, but only the appetizer. Here's another succulent dish:
quote:
Additional thoughts after the shock of such an absurd claim has worn off:
[SNIP]
Who knows, if we fixed the spending issue, we might actually have enough cash to buy body armour for our soldiers.
We already do. They have it. Read the news, Art, read the news.
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE:
quote:
Even the B-2 only has an effective range of about getting to Afghanistan from Nebraska. Unloaded it could *just* make it back to Nebraska WITH a refeuling. A fully loaded B-2 would require multiple refeulings to make such a run. It's still an absurd assertion.
If I'm counting right, this is the third post in which you mocked me for saying planes could take off in Nebraska, bomb Afghanistan and return without ever touching the ground.
quote:
Even the B-2 only has an effective range of about getting to Afghanistan from Nebraska. Unloaded it could *just* make it back to Nebraska WITH a refeuling. A fully loaded B-2 would require multiple refeulings to make such a run. It's still an absurd assertion.
We have aircraft carriers and foward hangers for a reason.
That would be NUMERO QUATRO. Let's all note that this statement (Post #152) was made at "2:49:16 PM" Pacific Time and my statement remained "still an absurd assertion" right up until "2:58:05 PM" with Post #153. In that post, just 8 minutes and 49 seconds later, Art, we go from "still an absurd assertion" to "you are correct that mid-air feuling is very useful for certain missions."
But I get ahead of myself. Let's savor the full, exquisite flavor of your post, because it's both the main course and dessert:
quote:
*nod* You're correct that mid-air feuling is very useful for certain missions. However, keep in mind the expense and difficulty of such requirements (mid-air fueling). Having a bomber require three to four refuelings on a mission flight IS ridiculous. (It takes nearly an end of the world scenario or an utterly "non-compliant" region in order to authorize such flights. Some spook directed missions also use such missions for "strategic bombing" (that is to say, as per your suggestion, actions we wish our allies to nothing of). We have the capability, but to assert it as though it was matter of course (as he did) with the implication that was our tactic in Afghanistan (which it was not) and with the implication that it was without complication is just utterly wrong.
Art, you should really know when to throw in the towel. Now I don't recall saying it was "a matter of course" to leave from Nebraska and refuel to go anywhere in the world, but that's because, unlike you, Art, I make the attempt not to make strong statements without being able to back them up. I remembered distinctly that I'd read we'd had bombers leave from Nebraska, bomb Afghanistan (or perform other functions over that country) and return without ever touching ground outside their Air Force base. I remembered it because it amazed me. I don't actually know much at all about Air Force planes and don't claim to. I just try to only make statements that I'm pretty sure I can back up if I have to. You might just want to consider that policy yourself.
Because when you state "but to assert ... that was our tactic in Afghanistan (which it was not) ... is just utterly wrong" puts you into a bit of a factual disagreement with that ferocious rightwing conservative, that Ghengis Khan of the Great Northwest, United States Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash.:
quote:
It is fair to say that we would not have had such a swift and complete victory in Afghanistan without air tankers. Tankers are the backbone of our air capability. They enable the United States to project force and to strike targets -- and terrorists -- anywhere in the world. Over the last decade -- from Iraq to Bosnia to Afghanistan -- the deployment of air tankers has grown exponentially.
To strike targets in Afghanistan, bombers and fighter-bombers required an unprecedented number of mid-air refuelings. During the heaviest bombing of the war, 30 to 35 tankers were in the air nearly around the clock to refuel 100 tactical jets. U.S. bombers flying from the airbase on Diego Garcia, 3,000 miles away required three refuelings to complete their missions. Flying the B-2 stealth bomber from its home in Missouri to Afghanistan and back required nine in-air refuelings. Even carrier-based warplanes needed the aid of air tankers to strike targets in Afghanistan.
That's from a news release on her official website (Monday, May 20, 2002).
http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=189039
About 60 seconds of Googling, Art. That's all it took.
Oh, that's right. She says "Missouri." Maybe Nebraska was just too far. Perhaps you'd like to therefore claim that you were right all along, Art.
I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a little riff that's turned on the knowledge of people who know more about the military than you or me, and being as how I know how to use Google, the most powerful search engine in the world, and could blow your next assertion clean out of the water, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, Art?
http://imdb.com/title/tt0066999/quotes
My compliments to the chef.
_____________________________
I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
|
RE: Emerging Superpowers the downfall of American domin... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread