RE: Benghazi

RE: Benghazi (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

SimplyMichael -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 5:33:35 PM)
I was just telling you that the data was for the right version.

Kirata -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 5:49:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Air force is only flying block 50s... According to FAS, the USAF is flying Block 50/52 and Block 50D/52D F-16s ("in May 2000, the Air Force certitified Block 50/52 [aka Block 50 Plus] F-16s") with the Block 50D/52D versions being "the sole provider for Air Force SEAD missions." The FAS reported combat-radius is "740 nm (1,370 km) w/2 2,000-lb bombs + 2 AIM-9 + 1,040 US gal external tanks." K.

popeye1250 -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 6:14:46 PM)
Doesn't anyone find it odd that right after Benghazzi President Pantload was saying, "we'll get to the bottom of this!" "People will be held accountable!" etc and now, ten months later he's calling this ...a "phoney scandal?" Something is going on in our govt. that they don't want The People to know about regarding Benghazzi. But, Pantload's DOJ ordered a school to let a transexual use the girl's bathroom! Boy, he's getting serious now!

Kirata -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 6:32:57 PM)
nm

cloudboy -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 6:53:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I'm remembering quickly why I don't bother trying to converse with you, SimplyMichael. Same old crap. He has left you tarred and feathered. He's beat you on facts, logic, and comparative analysis. If those elements constitute 'crap,' then it gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "You are full or crap." The consolation prize is Popeye is on your side.

MrBukani -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 7:19:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata nm nevermind nirvana?

DomKen -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 7:20:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The unsupported combat radius of an F-16 is 340 miles. The straight line distance between Sigonella and Benghazi is 470 miles. Combat range (air-to-ground with 2 Mk.84 class bombs) 1,370 km (740 nm) ~Source The F-16 can fly more than 500 miles (860 kilometers), deliver its weapons with superior accuracy, defend itself against enemy aircraft, and return to its starting point. ~Source Note "more than" (unspecified) at second source. Capabilities vary with different versions. Maybe you are also confused about the difference between combat range and combat radius. As to the second statement they must be including mid air refueling since there are a multitude of documented sources, including the one you present first that say differently.

DomKen -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 7:23:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I am not sure that is radius... It is the combat radius for the F-16C. See here. Capabilities vary with different models. That reference actually says the F-16 has a combat radius of 340nm which is far short of 740.

Kirata -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 7:25:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Why are the people that cheered our going into Iraq now aghast at the death of 4 Americans. They were quite happy to lose thousands as long as we got mean old Saddam(who was no threat to this Republic) Maybe realizing they were mistaken to support that action has inclined them to question all-too-convenient excuses. Another question that might be asked is why those who opposed going into Iraq are so willing to buy snake-oil from the current administration. K.

TheHeretic -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 7:32:37 PM)
nm Not worth the nastygram

Kirata -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 7:40:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That reference actually says the F-16 has a combat radius of 340nm which is far short of 740. What the reference "actually says" is exactly what I said it says. Your claim that I misrepresented the information is apparently based on the peculiar belief that people are incapable of clicking on a link. The combat radius of an aircraft depends on its armament and fuel configuration, and you disingenuously cited only the shorter distance in order to support a faux argument. K.

TheHeretic -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 7:45:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I'm remembering quickly why I don't bother trying to converse with you, SimplyMichael. Same old crap. He has left you tarred and feathered. He's beat you on facts, logic, and comparative analysis. If those elements constitute 'crap,' then it gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "You are full or crap." What thread are you reading? He can't even get on the same page of discussion, and resorted to playground chickenshit when invited to do so. "Same old crap," btw was actually a little play on the name he was using when we first crossed paths here. He makes cool toys, as I understand it, so blow him if you like.

Kirata -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 7:59:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Maybe you are also confused about the difference between combat range and combat radius. As to the second statement they must be including mid air refueling since there are a multitude of documented sources, including the one you present first that say differently. The second statement links to the official website of the United States Air Force, which I think we can presume knows more than you do. And as for the first link, it does not "say differently" (see previous reply above). K.

DomKen -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 8:20:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That reference actually says the F-16 has a combat radius of 340nm which is far short of 740. What the reference "actually says" is exactly what I said it says. Your claim that I misrepresented the information is apparently based on the peculiar belief that people are incapable of clicking on a link. The combat radius of an aircraft depends on its armament and fuel configuration, and you disingenuously cited only the shorter distance in order to support a faux argument. K. No. It does actually say that a ground strike combat radius is 340nm. Scroll down to the specifications section and read.

DomKen -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 8:23:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Maybe you are also confused about the difference between combat range and combat radius. As to the second statement they must be including mid air refueling since there are a multitude of documented sources, including the one you present first that say differently. The second statement links to the official website of the United States Air Force, which I think we can presume knows more than you do. And as for the first link, it does not "say differently" (see previous reply above). K. If the combat range is 740nm then the plane cannot fly 500 miles, deliver ordinance and fly 500 miles back to base. (740nm being only 851.5 miles). They had to mean that was with mid air refueling.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 8:39:54 PM)
It does look like the F16 could make it. I have never looked into Benghazi before cause it sounded like a tempest in a teapot. i actually statred a thread a while back trying to figure out what the big deal was so forgive me jist coming uo to speed.. Acording to the rather simplistic waslll strrrwt journal timeline, Ambasador ends a meeting at 8pm, attack starts a bit after that, hes dead three hours later. So, F16s couldn't have gottent there IN TIME, and they have no real nighttime strike ability and if you look at the layout whic is very rural, the mob was inside the building, so what are the,planes going,to do, at night, no ground controller, nothing. And that is with perfect hindsight. Its like the idiot nuts who blame bush for not scrambling fighters to shoot down the last two 9/11 planes. Oh, and we would need both italian and libyan permission to launch an attack and then invade their airspace. They didnt go cause there was no point.

Kirata -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 9:03:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No. It does actually say that a ground strike combat radius is 340nm. Scroll down to the specifications section and read. Well no, it doesn't. Nowhere (for clarity, that means "not anywhere") on the page does it state that an F-16 configured for a ground attack mission is limited to a 340nm combat radius. K.

Kirata -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 9:13:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen If the combat range is 740nm then the plane cannot fly 500 miles, deliver ordinance and fly 500 miles back to base. (740nm being only 851.5 miles). They had to mean that was with mid air refueling. Firstly, with in-flight refueling available the target distance would not be limited to 500 miles. Secondly, the definition of "combat radius" excludes refueling: Combat radius refers to the distance from an airbase that a warplane can reach, patrol there for a set amount of time and return to base with minimal fuel left ~Military Analysis K.

TheHeretic -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 9:27:39 PM)
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the guy who was used as a convenient scapegoat for the pre-election cover story is still jailed on a probation violation, in a state that can't shove the gangbangers out the prison gates fast enough.

TheHeretic -> RE: Benghazi (7/28/2013 9:31:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I have never looked into Benghazi before cause it sounded like a tempest in a teapot. i actually statred a thread a while back trying to figure out what the big deal was so forgive me jist coming uo to speed.. Funny. I saw that thead, and there seemed to be a pretty good set of OFA talking points built right into the foundation. Not much interest in free speech there either.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.492188E-02