Avenger -- Why UAVs are great and F-22s suck

[Drake Tungsten]

Just ban him now. You need to take someone down today to prove yourself and it might as well be Moby.

[Patroklos]

Are you unaware that when talking about CAPABILITIES one is not talking about HISTORICAL USAGE?

I suggest you read the OP again, there is no historical usage for the Avenger. This must be your reading comprehension thing acting up again.

\Fact is, I was right and I was right again to ignore most of your posts because the whole premise of your argument was wrong.

I wonder if the self defeating nature of your comment above is even known to you. Probaly not.

Please continue Asher, we have moved far beyond you simply being obviously wrong on a mundane topic. This has moved on to you displaying everything that is ugly about you personally. Its enthralling really.

[Asher]

MOBIUS: You're going to have to start contributing to the discussion pretty soon.

Please don't go the route of the overbearing internet moderators that wish to "facilitate a serious discussion". It's not a fit for the OTF.

Just keep an eye out for slurs and the like.

Like, I'm offended by Patty calling me a ****** because I am not. But when I call him a ******, he clearly is, so it's okay.

I can prepare some more rules like this for you if you'd like.

[Asher]

I suggest you read the OP again, there is no historical usage for the Avenger. This must be your reading comprehension thing acting up again.

Oh God, Patty, this is pathetic.

So what capability of the F-22 does this have again?

So where the hell does the historical usage of UAVs and AAM come into play given this question? It doesn't. You asked what CAPABILITIES it has, and the UAVs are CAPABLE of equipping Stingers and Sidewinders currently. AAMs.

Pathetic.

[Drake Tungsten]

the UAVs are CAPABLE of equipping Stingers and Sidewinders currently. AAMs.

Again, so what?

[MOBIUS]

MOBIUS: You're going to have to start contributing to the discussion pretty soon.

I did. I agree with DanS and Asher - even going so far as to quoting DanS' nice summary.

It is such an obvious and logical conclusion that I fail to see how on earth this argument could have struggled on in the manner it has for so long. It is an open and shut case: Pattycakes - Epic Fail!

I am now happily ridiculing Pattycakes and his cohorts for continuing a futile argument that he lost on the first page of this thread.

If that's not contributing to the discussion, I don't know what is...

[Asher]

the UAVs are CAPABLE of equipping Stingers and Sidewinders currently. AAMs.

Again, so what?

Again, so it contradicts his claim that UAVs can't fire air to air missiles.

Mind you he's now changed his topic in an even more pathetic move because he can't find any evidence that the Avenger has fired AAM yet (because virtually nothing is public on the plane!), but since its predecessors were capable and since the Avenger is bigger and better, that's a clearly ridiculous position to take as well.

[MOBIUS]

Just ban him now. You need to take someone down today to prove yourself and it might as well be Moby.

I'd just stick in his craw and give him heartburn - nothing worse than me repeating on you!

He's better off starting with small fry like you...

[Drake Tungsten]

Again, so it contradicts his claim that UAVs can't fire air to air missiles.

That's a pretty lame point to score.

[Asher]

Again, so it contradicts his claim that UAVs can't fire air to air missiles.

That's a pretty lame point to score.

Dude, that's the origin of the whole discussion.

Re-read the first page. I keep focused on this basic point and deliberately ignored the rest of Patty's **** to focus on this very basic point to prove he doesn't know **** about high-level military planning or air force capabilities.

He still won't admit it, so I agree that "lame" is quite an understatement.

[Patroklos]

So where the hell does the historical usage of UAVs and AAM come into play given this question?

I think you are confused as to who brought up historic usage, which was you. I brought up current capabilities, sourced by the OP actually.

And no I didn't ask what capabilities UAVs have, I asked what "this" (the Avenger since you have trouble understanding the finer points of written language.) has. You could have said stealth. Or more likely an answer more in line with your ineptitude displayed in this thread and said flight. But the crux of the matter is nothing that makes it a replacement for the F-22.

[Asher]

I think you are confused as to who brought up historic usage, which was you. I brought up current capabilities, sourced by the OP actually.

And no I didn't ask what capabilities UAVs have, I asked what "this" (the Avenger since you have trouble understanding the finer points of written language.) has. You could have said stealth. Or more likely an answer more in line with your ineptitude displayed in this thread and said flight. But the crux of the matter is nothing that makes it a replacement for the F-22.

Oh, for **** sakes.

Everything we know about the Avenger points to it having the same weapon capabilities of its predecessors! Unless YOU prove otherwise, this is ALSO a reasonable assumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger

The Predator C Avenger will support the same weapons as the MQ-9, and carry the Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar and an electro-optical/infrared sensor.

http://www.ga-asi.com/news_events/index.php?read=1&id=186

Avenger presents a no risk/low-cost procurement option as it employs the same proven materials and avionics as Predator B and is controlled from and fully compatible with the standard GA-ASI Ground Control Stations (GCSs) used to control all Predator-series aircraft currently in use by U.S. and allied military services. The aircraft is slightly larger than PredatorB, incorporates a certified pure jet powerplant (Pratt & Whitney’s PW545B), and can carry the same mix of weapons as Predator B.

Predator B can carry Stingers and Sidewinders...Avenger carries the same mix of weapons as a Predator B...are you familiar with the logical property of transitivity?

I also didn't say ANYTHING about replacing the F-22 as a piece of technology. I just described, FACETIOUSLY, its CAPABILITIES it shared with the F-22, which included firing air to air missiles!

How far will you keep digging?

[Lorizael]

Please don't go the route of the overbearing internet moderators that wish to "facilitate a serious discussion". It's not a fit for the OTF.

*shrug* If Patroklos and those on his "side" don't care what MOBIUS is doing, then I don't care. To me, MOBIUS is just so much noise.

Just keep an eye out for slurs and the like.

Like, I'm offended by Patty calling me a ****** because I am not. But when I call him a ******, he clearly is, so it's okay.

Yes. Well. That's not exactly how it works. But I know neither of you actually gives a **** if a few insults are thrown around.

I can prepare some more rules like this for you if you'd like.

That's quite alright.

[MOBIUS]

*shrug* If Patroklos and those on his "side" don't care what MOBIUS is doing, then I don't care.

They are deliberately ignoring the fact that I have reminded them in a manner that they cannot argue against, that they have lost the main argument.

These are not my words, but DanS', which I have quoted. You will note that they have also completely ignored DanS to focus on the small individual semantics they are engaged in with Asher. Which he is still arguing with them, I suspect, for his entertainment at this stage.

In short, they are busily pouring their efforts into fighting a minor battle in a war that they have already lost. Worse still, they have already lost the battle long ago as well...

To me, MOBIUS is just so much noise.

Then why ask me to contribute to the discussion, eh? Way to contradict yourself, Dickhead!

Yes. Well. That's not exactly how it works. But I know neither of you actually gives a **** if a few insults are thrown around.

If someone is actually a ******, I think it only fair to call them a ******. Just like if someone is a dickhead...

[Asher]

Patty is just desperately searching for a way to get out of admitting he was wrong in a debate with me, AGAIN, on military matters.