Steve Davies

Edited by a prominent AQ sympathiser in North Carolina, and will no doubt be a big hit with Johnny Taliban and his mates: Jihad Recollections - Issue 1 Issue 1 contains such gems as: 'Staying in Shape Without Weights' (ideal for those Mujahadeen who don't have time to visit the gym), and 'Four Practical Steps to Expand the Global Jihad' (for all those extremists who want to kill the unbelievers, but aren't quite sure how to go about it). Sounds awesome!

OK, here's one: Where exactly did the 'throwing of a nickel on the grass to save a fighter pilot's ass' come from? And why a nickel? Does it pre-date SEA?

That rules out the shocker, then.

Anyone would think that only fighter pilots say STS. Where I come from, it is not unusual to hear people say 'in a manner of speaking' and 'so to speak' in order to obviate any embarrassing interpretations of a double entendre. Perhaps the real problem here involves a clash of cultures between different flying communities.

Are you sure, Nole. There have been three F-22 crashes: one YF-22, and two F-22As (Nellis Dec 2005, and today's Edwards crash). The last two form part of the 183, no?

I believe that actually leaves only 181 - this is the second Raptor loss.

I suppose that it depends on what threat systems the likes of Syria and Iran field in the future, but in a totally unscientific fashion I look at the F-15SE and wonder whether its RCS reduction will be significant enough against an S300 or Phazotron Zhuk AE to be worth the expenditure accross what is a very small fleet of jets (IDF purchased only 25 F-15I Ra'ams). Israel might be more inclined to spend those sorts of dollars on its expansive F-16C/D or F-16I Sufa fleets, as these seem to be where the IDF's current development emphasis lies.

Don't blame me for McAir's use of a misleading acronym! There were five main FAST pack concepts:SEAD version, Recce version, RATO version and Strike Assist version. Based on the original concept drawings that I have, only the fifth concept - the Fuel version that eventually developed into the tangential carriage CFT that you use - actually carried gas.

True, but it was always either fuel, or internal sensors, never both at the same time. Same applies here. In any case, I just wanted to say FAST packs, so leave me alone!

Hacker They reference the compressor blades in the article that M2 linked to. The CFT in the photo is actually a 'weapons pallet' (i.e. FAST pack) and therefore carries no gas. As for the LO loadout, isn't 4xAIM-120 pretty underwhelming? Looking at the existing F-15E FMS customer base, I am struggling to identify who might go for this as a retrofit; looking at potential FMS customers, it seems that the likes of Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon would be a much better deal.

Then don't get into a discussion about it in the first place. They were making the same points as I was - points that you were taking issue with. I am not dragging them into it; as respondents to some of your posts, they are already a part of it. That's why this is called a 'thread' - the clue is in the name. On which cheery note, I'll call it a day on this thread.

I also note that you have decided 'to agree to disagree' with valid arguments from Hacker and Krabs. The distinction might make it OK in your view, but that's not a position that my own personal standards will allow me to subscribe to. If an editor or guest columnist doesn't know what they are talking about, then they should think twice about why they are writing. In this case, you would expect him to know what he's talking about as his bio refers to him as a freelance defence and aviation journalist. I am sorry if you take offence at my insistence on calling him on basic errors that undermine the entire premise of his two page article, but I find people like him do little to enhance the reputation of an industry that already comes under the kosh from all quarters. Then, of course, there are all the other errors that he makes... let me know if you want to have a quick look at those, too.

Brick If it's the USAF Historian, then that'll be Dick Anderegg. If it's him, I will drop him a line and ask him what's going on.

Does the AF have a GO that is the designated POC for heritage matters?

Nah, there's no money in it! In my mind you are female, very hot and go all weak when you hear the accent. Don't spoil it by telling me that you are a bloke who hates the English and their yellow teeth, and thinks that we need to learn how to speak properly.

Says who? No, it is not splitting hairs. Professional writers are expected to know the difference between obsolete (out of date) and supersede (to take something's place). Readers less familiar with military aviation should not be expected to 'interpret the words' of an article of this kind - we're not talking academic research paper, here. In this context, confusing what supersedes something with what makes something obsolete not only muddles the argument, but also shows a lack of understanding of the underlying issues. Indeed, we don't know, and I would suggest that the author has smudged this issue because he doesn't, either. What does that say for his credibility? You'll notice that there appears to have been no effort made to talk to DoD, Lockmart, the USAF or any other authority on LO technologies. Indeed, there is not a single quote in either article from a defense industry source; this is simply a case of very poor journalistic practise (which was my original gripe in my first post) Regardless, even someone with a basic unclassified knowledge of the F-117 would would be able to make an educated guess that for the most part there's nothing especially gee whiz about the avionics inside the jet - a FLIR/DLIR, RLG INS etc. So, the really sensitive technology he's unknowingly referencing is probably, a) the classified stuff that contributes to low RCS, and b) the classified mission planning software that you need in order to be able to get into and out of a target area protected by a multi-layered IADS. In the case of the latter, I am led to believe that it is almost as sensitive as the jet itself. You seem to be working on the assumption that if a certain technology has been superseded or is obsolete, then it is somehow less sensitive to export. That is not how it works. There are plenty of technologies that have been replaced or improved upon that the US will never make available for export. As far as LO materials are concerned, just because there are new RAM coatings for the F-35 that the US is prepared to share with the partner nations in that programme, doesn't mean that older RAM technologies employed by the F-117 are no longer extremely sensitive, or that the US is prepared to share the details behind them. Once again, I refer you to the current conditions under which the jet is being stored, which I would have hoped would tell you most of what you need to know about its sensitivity. As for end user monitoring, how would you propose that would work? Wow. I am totally baffled by how you can go from me having an issue with a flawed article on the sale of LO technology, to me only commenting on this because I hate Israel (that's the inference I take from your accusation). I confined my original comments to the validity of a particular paragraph about the F-117; I commented on the article, not on whether Israel would benefit or should benefit from the F-117. When you started moaning about how Italy has been trusted with RAM but Israel has not, I then mentioned the very important issue of trust - an issue that even the vague author of your article feels compelled to address! You will want to be very careful about making comments like this... you have no idea what I think about Israel or whether I have a pro- or anti-Israel bias overall. And if you think that you can draw such conclusions about me based on my posts about the proportionality of Israel's military actions (or the wisdom of selling of sensitive technology to Israel) on an internet forum then you need to rethink the wisdom behind that logic.

Try this: Duh #1: The OTS components in the the F-117 are not now, and never were, what one would use as a basis for defining how 'advanced' it is. That's like saying the F-22 is not advanced because it uses a tricycle landing gear similar to the P-38. What made the a/c advanced at the time was its ability to penetrate an IADS and put a bomb down a ventilator shaft - the landing gear, FLCS, motors and other OTS components weren't the real stars in making that happen. Duh #2: No, its faceted design has been *superseded* by CAD that can create blended designs that are more efficient. If the F-117 is going to be described as 'obsolete', then it is the development of new IADS systems that increase its RCS in certain regimes that have rendered it so. In other words, he doesn't really understand what he's talking about. Duh #3: 'Remain onboard'? What does that mean, exactly? Assuming he's talking RAM versus avionics, if you remove 'the classified technologies' - the skin, sealants, treatments and whatever other coatings are used - then you end up with an odd shaped a/c that has an RCS that would be far too big to allow it to be any use. There is a reason that the USAF has retired the F-117 to Tonopah, and it's not because they couldn't find anywhere else to store them. There's a huge difference between sharing secrets with a valued defence partner on a project as important as JSF, and selling off retired F-117s at a discount to someone that you couldn't trust as far as you could throw them.

You need only read this paragraph in order to appreciate that the author doesn't know what he's talking about:

Or, you get hold of two Flankers from a former Soviet satellite, fly them somewhere secret in the Nellis ranges, and limit exposures to a small number of Aggressor, WIC and OT&E guys. An even better idea!

I resemble that remark. I mean, I resent that remark!

A near-perfect summary of the Ryanair experience - the only thing you missed is that they falsely claim to fly to a city, when in actual fact that they will fly to a provincial airport tens of miles away from it. You then have to get a bus or a cab into the actual city: add another wad of money to cover that, and the true cost of flying Ryanair becomes clear.

Ryanair has already demonstrated that it has no shame, but this one scrapes the bottom of the barrel. BBC: Ryanair mulls charge for toilets And O'Leary is wrong - I have flown on a Ryanair flight before without any cash on me. What is the money grabbing ejit going to do when people start pissing into plastic bottles - or all over their seat - on his flights?

It's called pragmatism.

Just finished reading: Rampant Raider: an A-4 Skyhawk pilot in Vietnam Very well written and a pretty rare insight into Skyhawk ops in Vietnam.

You're welcome, Peter Griffin.