Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canada’s political reversal is complete

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
    2. He complains that the plane isn't maneuverable. That's bull****. The thing can pull a 9g turn, which is stretching the limit human pilots can operate in anyway.


    3. The F-16 can't do ground support? Oh really? Tell that to the IAF.


    I imagine the Israelis would listen closely, considering he designed the F-16.

    Comment


    • #62
      Apparently not closely enough to take his advice. And by the way, neither do we, although we also have A-10s to fill the ground support role.

      Also, you make it sound as if he designed it all by himself.
      If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
      ){ :|:& };:

      Comment


      • #63
        The F-16 does ground support all the time. The Israelis use it for that purpose all the time.

        Comment


        • #64
          Oh, but it's completely terrible at it! You can trust me because I was one of thousands of people to work on the thing when it was developed. Forget its operational record. Listen to me spew my military wisdom literally from my armchair!
          If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
          ){ :|:& };:

          Comment


          • #65
            Only an ignorant **** would think the F-16 (a lightweight fighter designed for dogfighting) is anywhere near as capable at ground attack missions as the A-10 (which was designed specifically for close air support).

            Comment


            • #66
              The F-16 was designed as a day fighter but wound up being a very effect multirole all-weather aircraft.

              Sure, the A-10 is excellent at tankbusting. Buying more A-10s might not be a bad idea. For whatever reason the Air Force hates them and wants to be rid of them as quickly as possible; in fact, the only reason it's still around is because the Army balks whenever the Air Force tries to do just that.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Tupac Shakur View Post
                Only an ignorant **** would think the F-16 (a lightweight fighter designed for dogfighting) is anywhere near as capable at ground attack missions as the A-10 (which was designed specifically for close air support).
                Well it's good that I never said that. The A-10 is ****ing awesome
                If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                ){ :|:& };:

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
                  You can trust me because I was one of thousands of people to work on the thing when it was developed.
                  Since I don't trust that you'll realize how retarded this is on your own...

                  Pierre Sprey consulted for Grumman Aircraft's research department from 1958 to 1965, then joined Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's "Whiz Kids" in the Pentagon. There, in 1967, he met the Air Force's brilliant and original tactician, Col. John Boyd and quickly became a disciple and collaborator of Boyd's. Together with another innovative fighter pilot, Col. Everest Riccioni (U.S. Air Force), they started and carried out the concept design of the F-16 air-to-air fighter and went on to bring the project to fruition.

                  Sprey also headed up the technical side of the Air Force's concept design team for the A-10 close support fighter. Then, against opposition, he helped implement the A-10's innovative live-fire, prototype fly-off competition and subsequent production. Sprey left the Pentagon in 1971 but continued to consult actively on the F-16, the A-10, tanks and anti-tank weapons, and realistic operational/live-fire testing of major weapons.




                  Sprey is John mother****ing Boyd's disciple.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    That was a relatively quick threadjack.
                    "My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
                    "The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
                      Good point, I meant widow-making the wrong people
                      Maxim #4. Close air support covereth a multitude of sins.
                      Maxim #5. Close air support and friendly fire should be easier to tell apart.
                      No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Just out of curiosity back when UNESCO recognised Palestine Canada quickly joined the US in pulling its funding of UNESCO. I thought I heard a few months later that Canada reversed its position and reinstated funding. Is that true?
                        "I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          As far as I can tell, no.

                          Can we not have another Israel/Palestine thread? Even Canadian politics are more interesting.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Does this mean you'll drop the ridiculous bilingual requirement for government?
                            I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                            For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by DinoDoc View Post
                              Does this mean you'll drop the ridiculous bilingual requirement for government?
                              ?
                              "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
                              "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Dr Strangelove View Post
                                Just out of curiosity back when UNESCO recognised Palestine Canada quickly joined the US in pulling its funding of UNESCO. I thought I heard a few months later that Canada reversed its position and reinstated funding. Is that true?
                                You got your facts wrong.

                                Canada will continue funding UNESCO even though it doesn’t like the organization’s move to recognize a Palestinian state, but Ottawa will rebuff appeals for more money to make up for a U.S. cut.

                                Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Tuesday that Canada will say no to new requests for voluntary funding to make up for a massive budget shortfall looming as the U.S. cuts its financial contribution to UNESCO. But Ottawa will continue to pay the roughly $10-million per year that UNESCO levies for Canadian membership.





                                Harper is fanatically pro-Israel (more so than any prior PM) but the political price would have been too high for him.
                                "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
                                "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X