Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:36 pm
Um hate to raise the issue but war is war.. can anyone name a war where civllians like you and me HAVENT died?
Every war civillians are caught and innocently and sometimes on purposes killed - by orders from up high.
Most people have NO concept of this as it happens nowdays in 3rd world countries NOT in the western world. War kills many each day, Phillipines, Indoesnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, , Africian countries - take ya pick -, Checneya, South America, etc
DO i hear any of you saying gezz sad to see the death of people who didnt ask for the war?
NOPE
Imagine if the reverse happened and 100s were killed daily in the USA on a war not big or small and not media savy war type.. do you think youd be effected by such deaths or just carry on per normal?
Some people in warzone have to carry on knowing any SECOND they may die.
So grow up and take it from a civllian viewpoint that war is nasty but yes people die EVERY time a politicaian opens their mouth trap.
Does anyone care about when B52s in Dec 1972 walked downtown Hanoi destroying many civllians homes? What do you say on that issue?
Hell if we gona be anal what about the 8th AF bombing daylight cities in germany.. or the RAF night time bombing of cities..
WHERE WILL THIS DEBATE END?
Many people are killed by wars, if you dont like this, dont vote for warmongers in power. I didnt. .. but did you?
Every war civillians are caught and innocently and sometimes on purposes killed - by orders from up high.
Most people have NO concept of this as it happens nowdays in 3rd world countries NOT in the western world. War kills many each day, Phillipines, Indoesnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, , Africian countries - take ya pick -, Checneya, South America, etc
DO i hear any of you saying gezz sad to see the death of people who didnt ask for the war?
NOPE
Imagine if the reverse happened and 100s were killed daily in the USA on a war not big or small and not media savy war type.. do you think youd be effected by such deaths or just carry on per normal?
Some people in warzone have to carry on knowing any SECOND they may die.
So grow up and take it from a civllian viewpoint that war is nasty but yes people die EVERY time a politicaian opens their mouth trap.
Does anyone care about when B52s in Dec 1972 walked downtown Hanoi destroying many civllians homes? What do you say on that issue?
Hell if we gona be anal what about the 8th AF bombing daylight cities in germany.. or the RAF night time bombing of cities..
WHERE WILL THIS DEBATE END?
Many people are killed by wars, if you dont like this, dont vote for warmongers in power. I didnt. .. but did you?
Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:41 pm
Randy they may slow your flying down after all... You guys have got to quit flying them like you stole them! 
USAF Expands Suspension Of F-15 Flight Ops
Tue, 06 Nov '07
Approximately 700 Aircraft Grounded
What was originally a "precautionary measure" has evolved into something on a far greater scale. The US Air Force has suspended all normally-scheduled operations involving F-15 Eagle fighter jets, including planned missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The suspension affects roughly 700 aircraft.
As ANN reported, the USAF suspended all non-critical F-15 operations this weekend, following the November 2 downing of a Missouri Air National Guard F-15. Early reports point to in-flight structural failure as the cause of that crash; the single pilot onboard was able to eject, suffering non-life-threatening injuries in the process.
Officials are concerned the accident points to a potential fleetwide issue with the aging fighters. The first F-15s entered service in the mid-1970s; the C-model aircraft involved in Friday's accident was built in the early-1980s.
The suspension does not apply to "mission-critical" uses, including emergency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Newer F-15E Strike Eagles (shown at center) are deployed in those theaters, while older planes are mostly flown by ANG and reserve units. The aircraft involved in Friday's accident was operated by the 131st Fighter Wing at Lambert Field.
Douglas Birkey, deputy director for government relations at the Air Force Association, told The Washington Post that accident shows pilots are at risk when flying the F-15, and in particular putting the aging aircraft through high-speed, high-G-force maneuvers.
"Obviously that pilot in Missouri didn't get into that aircraft thinking it would come apart on him," Birkey said. "Each day you push out the age of the fleet, you're coming closer to a cliff. That F-15 went off a cliff."
The Air Force has started replacement of the oldest F-15s with F-22 Raptor fighters. To date, 97 F-22s have entered service, and the Air Force wants more. Congress has authorized funding for 183 Raptors; the USAF wants 381.
"It does make you wonder about the stress on the airframe and the age," said Georgia congressman Phil Gingrey, member of the House Armed Services Committee. "But this is not just simply a matter of flight reliability because of aging and metal fatigue, but the fact that the F-22 is so far superior." (Gingrey's district includes Marietta, where Lockheed Martin's primary F-22 assembly plant is located.)
The Air Force says it is possible F-15s may be grounded for days, or longer if officials determine all aircraft must be inspected. Missions originally conducted with F-15s will either be postponed, or flown with other aircraft.
"I worry about the health of our aging fleet and how sometimes it is not well understood by those our airmen protect," said Air Force Lt. Gen. Gary L. North, commander of US Central Command's Combined Forces Air Component.
There have been at least three incidents involving F-15Cs this year, including a midair collision during Red Flag 2007. The 131st Fighter Wing lost another F-15 in May, when a control cable failed inflight.
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, the Air Force's deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, is familiar with possible issues involving F-15s. In 1999, Deptula experienced an emergency situation while flying an F-15 over Iraq; it was determined wiring had disintegrated due to age, according to the Post.
Today, Deptula's son flies the same planes. "They have become serious maintenance challenges as they get older, and now I'd suggest that we may be facing a crisis," Lt. Gen. Deptula said.
FMI: www.af.mil
USAF Expands Suspension Of F-15 Flight Ops
Tue, 06 Nov '07
Approximately 700 Aircraft Grounded
What was originally a "precautionary measure" has evolved into something on a far greater scale. The US Air Force has suspended all normally-scheduled operations involving F-15 Eagle fighter jets, including planned missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The suspension affects roughly 700 aircraft.
As ANN reported, the USAF suspended all non-critical F-15 operations this weekend, following the November 2 downing of a Missouri Air National Guard F-15. Early reports point to in-flight structural failure as the cause of that crash; the single pilot onboard was able to eject, suffering non-life-threatening injuries in the process.
Officials are concerned the accident points to a potential fleetwide issue with the aging fighters. The first F-15s entered service in the mid-1970s; the C-model aircraft involved in Friday's accident was built in the early-1980s.
The suspension does not apply to "mission-critical" uses, including emergency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Newer F-15E Strike Eagles (shown at center) are deployed in those theaters, while older planes are mostly flown by ANG and reserve units. The aircraft involved in Friday's accident was operated by the 131st Fighter Wing at Lambert Field.
Douglas Birkey, deputy director for government relations at the Air Force Association, told The Washington Post that accident shows pilots are at risk when flying the F-15, and in particular putting the aging aircraft through high-speed, high-G-force maneuvers.
"Obviously that pilot in Missouri didn't get into that aircraft thinking it would come apart on him," Birkey said. "Each day you push out the age of the fleet, you're coming closer to a cliff. That F-15 went off a cliff."
The Air Force has started replacement of the oldest F-15s with F-22 Raptor fighters. To date, 97 F-22s have entered service, and the Air Force wants more. Congress has authorized funding for 183 Raptors; the USAF wants 381.
"It does make you wonder about the stress on the airframe and the age," said Georgia congressman Phil Gingrey, member of the House Armed Services Committee. "But this is not just simply a matter of flight reliability because of aging and metal fatigue, but the fact that the F-22 is so far superior." (Gingrey's district includes Marietta, where Lockheed Martin's primary F-22 assembly plant is located.)
The Air Force says it is possible F-15s may be grounded for days, or longer if officials determine all aircraft must be inspected. Missions originally conducted with F-15s will either be postponed, or flown with other aircraft.
"I worry about the health of our aging fleet and how sometimes it is not well understood by those our airmen protect," said Air Force Lt. Gen. Gary L. North, commander of US Central Command's Combined Forces Air Component.
There have been at least three incidents involving F-15Cs this year, including a midair collision during Red Flag 2007. The 131st Fighter Wing lost another F-15 in May, when a control cable failed inflight.
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, the Air Force's deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, is familiar with possible issues involving F-15s. In 1999, Deptula experienced an emergency situation while flying an F-15 over Iraq; it was determined wiring had disintegrated due to age, according to the Post.
Today, Deptula's son flies the same planes. "They have become serious maintenance challenges as they get older, and now I'd suggest that we may be facing a crisis," Lt. Gen. Deptula said.
FMI: www.af.mil
Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:43 pm
mustangdriver wrote:Was there ever a C-130 gronding with the whole wingspar deal, or was is caught in time cycles.
There have been partial groundings cleared up with one-time inspections and specific partial-fleet groundings (unique to specific frames).
Don't know that there's ever been an all-inclusive grounding - too many variants out there.
There are recommended hour limits though (mandatory on the mil side of the house) - first step gets restrictions, second step is grounding.
As for the fog/friction - there is a cost of war & unfortunately, and not to make light of it by any means, it's part & parcel of the whole thing. Too many folks have watched LGBs go down air conditioning ducts & think everything is surgically precise destroying/killing only the intended target.
Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:49 pm
I would say many think nowdays seeing LGB down shafts and thru doors that they are just watching a video game.. there is no mental concept to most people that in alot of cases there are LIVING HUMANS BEINGS on the other end of that video shot.
War is remote stand off and media doesnt always remind people that yes people die.
Its only the ground wars that really get people minds.
Surgical precise bombing in some rural halmet of woop woop ville doesnt exactly grab everyone eyeballs much does it?
War is remote stand off and media doesnt always remind people that yes people die.
Its only the ground wars that really get people minds.
Surgical precise bombing in some rural halmet of woop woop ville doesnt exactly grab everyone eyeballs much does it?
Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:54 pm
I'm watching this thread and obviously, contributed to it earlier. The debate on war will never end, unfortunately, neither will war.
That being said, I am more concerned about one of our own, a frequent contributor, an owner of a "WARBIRD", posting such a comment.
What was the intention? Just to start a "fire" for fun? Real conviction? Why such a personal attack? Bad humor? I am confused.
I would think that we all are just a bit higher on the food chain for this kind of stuff. Can't wait to hear a rebuttal from Bill when, if he comes back.
Very perplexing.....
That being said, I am more concerned about one of our own, a frequent contributor, an owner of a "WARBIRD", posting such a comment.
What was the intention? Just to start a "fire" for fun? Real conviction? Why such a personal attack? Bad humor? I am confused.
I would think that we all are just a bit higher on the food chain for this kind of stuff. Can't wait to hear a rebuttal from Bill when, if he comes back.
Very perplexing.....
Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:01 pm
I really think he was joking, and everyone is overreacting, but what do I know? 
Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:02 pm
Nice position Muddy, but dumb joke, if so. You know better than that. 
You've been there...
You've been there...
Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:06 pm
It's so easy on the internet to casually make comments and have them taken the wrong way.
Bill is completely entitled to his own opinion. In fact, his ability to have his own opinion and be able to voice it is the first of those Constitutional rights that I as a member of the US military have sworn to support and defend.
Scott, my vote is to not ban Bill. Although I think his comment was rude, he's a current warbird owner and contributes to the content on this site significantly. Although I think his comment was rude (what if I'd asked "are you still molesting little boys?" in return -- because I find that equally as morally reprehensible as the idea that I was purposefully killing civilians), there is no "right" in the United States to not be offended by what someone says. Plus, I have thick enough skin to not actually be angered by a name someone calls me on the playground.
I understand the need to maintain order and discipline around here, but the beauty of the internet is that people can say what they want in relative anonymity. It is the ultimate expression of free speech, and I love it for that.
Bill, I'd be glad if you would visit my squadron someday and I could show you the people that I fly with. I'd love to show you the professional airmen that are currently flying in defense of the US. You'd probably be interested to find out that we hate war more than you do -- because we've actually had to participate in that ugly affair. You might be surprised to see the intensity and seriousness with which we strive to accomplish our missions honorably and with the minimum amount of collateral damage possible. I would hope that after seeing that you'd be proud of the solemn job we are charged by the US citizens to do.
Bill is completely entitled to his own opinion. In fact, his ability to have his own opinion and be able to voice it is the first of those Constitutional rights that I as a member of the US military have sworn to support and defend.
Scott, my vote is to not ban Bill. Although I think his comment was rude, he's a current warbird owner and contributes to the content on this site significantly. Although I think his comment was rude (what if I'd asked "are you still molesting little boys?" in return -- because I find that equally as morally reprehensible as the idea that I was purposefully killing civilians), there is no "right" in the United States to not be offended by what someone says. Plus, I have thick enough skin to not actually be angered by a name someone calls me on the playground.
I understand the need to maintain order and discipline around here, but the beauty of the internet is that people can say what they want in relative anonymity. It is the ultimate expression of free speech, and I love it for that.
Bill, I'd be glad if you would visit my squadron someday and I could show you the people that I fly with. I'd love to show you the professional airmen that are currently flying in defense of the US. You'd probably be interested to find out that we hate war more than you do -- because we've actually had to participate in that ugly affair. You might be surprised to see the intensity and seriousness with which we strive to accomplish our missions honorably and with the minimum amount of collateral damage possible. I would hope that after seeing that you'd be proud of the solemn job we are charged by the US citizens to do.
Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:13 pm
Back on topic, we've been sitting for the last two days with the jet fleet quietly sitting on the ramp. No word from Boeing yet on how long the fleet will be down -- yesterday at the beginning of the day we were told we could be flying again in a couple days.
In the mean time, we're using the non-flying time to prepare for some major exercises and inspections coming up. Too bad it's not the "paid vacation" time that most people are probably envisioning. It's more like hour-upon-hour of death by PowerPoint!
In the mean time, we're using the non-flying time to prepare for some major exercises and inspections coming up. Too bad it's not the "paid vacation" time that most people are probably envisioning. It's more like hour-upon-hour of death by PowerPoint!
Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:22 pm
Randy Haskin wrote:It's so easy on the internet to casually make comments and have them taken the wrong way.
Bill is completely entitled to his own opinion. In fact, his ability to have his own opinion and be able to voice it is the first of those Constitutional rights that I as a member of the US military have sworn to support and defend.
Scott, my vote is to not ban Bill. Although I think his comment was rude, he's a current warbird owner and contributes to the content on this site significantly. Although I think his comment was rude (what if I'd asked "are you still molesting little boys?" in return -- because I find that equally as morally reprehensible as the idea that I was purposefully killing civilians), there is no "right" in the United States to not be offended by what someone says. Plus, I have thick enough skin to not actually be angered by a name someone calls me on the playground.
I understand the need to maintain order and discipline around here, but the beauty of the internet is that people can say what they want in relative anonymity. It is the ultimate expression of free speech, and I love it for that.
Bill, I'd be glad if you would visit my squadron someday and I could show you the people that I fly with. I'd love to show you the professional airmen that are currently flying in defense of the US. You'd probably be interested to find out that we hate war more than you do -- because we've actually had to participate in that ugly affair. You might be surprised to see the intensity and seriousness with which we strive to accomplish our missions honorably and with the minimum amount of collateral damage possible. I would hope that after seeing that you'd be proud of the solemn job we are charged by the US citizens to do.
Randy, again, a noble repsonse. But, if I have a beef with you and what you are doing, I'd take it to you in a PM or other direct email. I would not throw it out to the public as Bill did.
I don't object to Bill speaking his mind, I only object to the way he did it.
If we want an anti war forum, have someone start it and maintain it. This is a "Warbird" forum for the discussion of and preservation of warbirds and their heritage, I think, not a forum for the preservation of war.
In my humble opinion, stay focused. We expect that if a member is the pilot of a warbird, that requires some higher craneal function. Maintain that same level of competence in this discussion.
Enough said (by me).
Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:02 am
HGUCSU Wrote:
To paraphrase a quote from you in a previous thread, "Your comments are unwelcome" , not because you are not entitled to your opinion, but because you chose to post them on a warbird forum.
Um hate to raise the issue but war is war.. can anyone name a war where civllians like you and me HAVENT died?
Every war civillians are caught and innocently and sometimes on purposes killed - by orders from up high.
Most people have NO concept of this as it happens nowdays in 3rd world countries NOT in the western world. War kills many each day, Phillipines, Indoesnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, , Africian countries - take ya pick -, Checneya, South America, etc
DO i hear any of you saying gezz sad to see the death of people who didnt ask for the war?
NOPE
Imagine if the reverse happened and 100s were killed daily in the USA on a war not big or small and not media savy war type.. do you think youd be effected by such deaths or just carry on per normal?
Some people in warzone have to carry on knowing any SECOND they may die.
So grow up and take it from a civllian viewpoint that war is nasty but yes people die EVERY time a politicaian opens their mouth trap.
Does anyone care about when B52s in Dec 1972 walked downtown Hanoi destroying many civllians homes? What do you say on that issue?
heck if we gona be anal what about the 8th AF bombing daylight cities in germany.. or the RAF night time bombing of cities..
WHERE WILL THIS DEBATE END?
Many people are killed by wars, if you dont like this, dont vote for warmongers in power. I didnt. .. but did you?
To paraphrase a quote from you in a previous thread, "Your comments are unwelcome" , not because you are not entitled to your opinion, but because you chose to post them on a warbird forum.
Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:11 am
sdennison wrote:Nice position Muddy, but dumb joke, if so. You know better than that.
You've been there...
You know you've done it. We all have. You know, one too many bourbons, and a silly joke becomes a stupid joke that makes you wince every time you think of it in the middle of the night, for years and years. Well, maybe I'm all alone in that.
Randy, I spilled my SoCo all over my keyboard when I read your reply--that was seriously funny stuff!
I keep wondering how you feel about the old Eagles. With the new Raptor coming online, are you anxious to fly them, will you miss the F15, wrinkles and all? I saw a Raptor at Edwards the other day, and it is a beautiful bird, but that F15 has sure seen us through some bad days. What are you guys saying about it?
Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:16 am
I compare the F-15 to an old muscle car, and the F-22 to a modern sports car. Both are cool in their own way. I love to hear info from the crews that fly them.
Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:51 am
mustangdriver wrote:I compare the F-15 to an old muscle car, and the F-22 to a modern sports car. Both are cool in their own way. I love to hear info from the crews that fly them.
Funny - I made that exact comparison between the F4 & the F15 15 years ago...
Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:55 am
Randy Haskin wrote:It's so easy on the internet to casually make comments and have them taken the wrong way.
Ooops. I'd hope Bill's remark was not meant the way it came out.
If Randy's comfortable that it's a blow-over issue (which it should be - c'mon boys make up -) that I'd also ask nicely for Bill's account to be reinstated.
Bill is completely entitled to his own opinion. In fact, his ability to have his own opinion and be able to voice it is the first of those Constitutional rights that I as a member of the US military have sworn to support and defend.
Scott, my vote is to not ban Bill. Although I think his comment was rude, he's a current warbird owner and contributes to the content on this site significantly.
More important (IMHO) than driving a Spitfire, he's also prepared to stand up and argue a case that he regularly gets hammered for and is clearly passionate about. Hey, even I don't agree with him at times, but it's important that we have a variety of viewpoints, opinions and attitudes otherwise it's just a bunch of guys sitting around going 'Awsome'. Which gets dull v. v. quick.
It's got to be within limits, though, and like a cheap shot about 'liberals' or 'tree-huggers' 'neo-cons' or ~eek~ 'historians' there are limits here, which Bill's been seen to bump.
Just my 2d. (Old money.)
On topic, I like Randy's remark about 'death by PowerPoint'. It takes a lot to make me feel a moment's pity for a jet driver, but hey, Randy, I feel for you. Does anyone in the USAF use the 'machine gun' transition noise in PowerPoint like the business nerds do?
PS. While you are in between Pinas Coladas (or warm beers) cast an eye over the Morotai Mutiny thread. I'd like your input on it.
Regards,