sherpa

And Hogan was wide open on the Sammy touchdown, running a slant from the right. Not sure Orton could have got it through the D-line, but Hogan was wide open and had the goal line.

Two points. There isn't any chance you are going to get live video, and almost none that you'll get live audio on the very narrow bandwidth that same airlines have. You can, maybe, get a bit of gametracker, but I'd bet even that would be very spotty. Second, if you are going to be at 10000 feet, per your claim, on an airliner, you have other, far more serious problems to consider.

Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without an accordion.

The Midway's deck was far too small too handle an F-14 squadron, but in a strategic sense, the F-18 did not replace the F-4. The F-4 was gone from every US carrier ex Midway, and presented huge disadvantages. That's why Kitty Hawk and Nimitz were sent to the Indian Ocean after US Embassy in Tehran was seized. There is simply no comparison between the capability of the F-18 and the F-4. Regarding the F4, I will relate an experience that occurred when the F-18 was brand new. It's first detachment away from its Lemoore California home base was in the very early 80's at Yuma. Good winter weather and the TACTS Range, (the range used for the movie TopGun). Anyway, I was one of the adversaries going to fight it. The real mission was for the initial cadre of F-18 RAG, (RTU) instructors for Air Force guys, to come up with the air combat portion of what was to be the syllabus for new F-18 guys. Anyway, the Sunday night prior to starting, we were in the O club going over schedules and operating area stuff and a Marine F-4 guy walks in. The Marines had their F-4 RAG at Yuma. Anyway, he comes over and starts indicating that he isn't a believer in the F-18 and blah blah blah. So between the three of us guys doing a 9am sortie, we agree that I will fight the F-18 in the first two engagements , which are simple one v one setups, and going to be day two training for new guys. At some point this Marine F-4 guy is going to show up. The deal is made for two F-4 v F-18 engagements. The first is a setup where the F-18 is in the lead, and the F-4 is 1000 feet dead six at the F-4's corner speed of 450kts. (For the uninitiated, corner speed is, basically, the indicated airspeed where the airplane can generated a maximum rate of turn or pitch change), in other words the sweet spot. The second is going to be a line abreast set up at one mile at the F-18's corner of about 320 kts. Standard neutral setup.. So we do our thing and the F-4 shows up, and sets himself up at 1000' dead six. 3...2...1...go. The F-18, in the lead, an ungodly bad position, goes to idle, pulls straight up. The F-4 starts up and overshoots badly. The F-18 in about 270 degrees of vertical turn, completely reverses the advantage and guns the F-4. Second setup. One mile abeam, 320 kts. 3...2...1...go. F-18 pulls inside as they both turn at each other Withing 90 degrees, the F-18 has already reversed and is starting a tracking solution on the F-4. By 150 degrees of turn the F-18 looks like a nicotine patch attached to the F-4's thigh.. End of exercise. F-4 goes home. While we are debriefing our part at the TACTS range, the F-4 major shows up and simply states "I have no questions," then leaves.

I guess this is where we cordially part then Tom. I flew the A7E for three years; two cruises. I then went to TopGun and served as an adversary fighting against pretty much everything you have mentioned, and have flown the F-18. To claim that the F-18 is "significantly less effective" than those airplanes that you claim it replaced is a view I have never heard from the hundreds of people I've know over the years I served. Never heard a single person make such a claim. F-18 vastly superior to the A7 in every single regard, except range, and we tank for that. Never participated in a single detachment, and there were scores, where the F-18 mission readiness did not exceed the A7, per your maintenance claim. Your F-4 inclusion is a non player. The F-4 was not replaced by the F-18. It was long gone. You could have made a point about the F-18 not replacing the F-14's fleet air defense role, valid and arguable, but a decent trade given the invisible nature of a fleet threat. But the F-4? Please. The A-6? Avionics be damned. The airplane was g limited for years and nowhere near a fight in fight out machine. Good luck in your further discussions here, but know ye this: Range is not everything, and with air superiority at sea, it can be easily handled. With air supremacy inland, as we have enjoyed, it is a total non player, as has been demonstrated over the past three conflicts. Not saying range is undesirable, just saying that claiming the F-18 is not a successful replacement for the airplanes you mentioned is not a valid point.

You have not replied to what I questioned in post 71. Again, how is the F-18 "significantly less effective in all rolls than the aircraft replaced," and, per your claim, do you really think the F-35 is an A-10 replacement? I'm not one for internet warfare/insults, and they seem to permeate here-just a newguy observation, so please don't do that. Just a simple question in response to your post.

In the interest of ease of reading, I'm going to ask you to defend this post line by line. "Given that the early F/A-18s were seriously handicapped by range and payload limits, and that they were significantly less effective than the aircraft they replaced in all roles, I'd question calling it "tremendously successful." Defend this,as I don't see it as being "significantly less effective than the aircraft," it replaced. Next. "Again, my point. The A-10 was designed to do a specific task, and excel at it. And it did so, and did so reliably and cheaply (originally $6M a plane, maybe $20M in today's costs. And we're replacing it with a plane with a unit cost of about $150M, that's less capable and survivable in the same role. That makes sense how, exactly?) " The A-10 was designed as a tank killer. Nothing more. Of course it has performed well, given that it has done so without any credible air defense opposition. We will never design such an aircraft again, because there is no need. You can have a multi mission capable airplane that does the same thing without being completely useless in any reasonable defense. Comparing its efficacy to the capability of the F-35 is senseless, as is comparing its cost. You could do the same thing with a helicopter or a C-130 gunship.

That's my point. When the thing is done, its tested, and flight testing seems to going very well.

A few points on DC Tom's lengthy but well constructed post. Responding to the first sentence, "If flight testing were going that well, the program wouldn't be seven years behind," is a logical fallacy. The program has evolved over the years until each service has its near final requirements. The fact that flight testing is going well has nothing to do with how long it took to get there. 1. Regarding the F-22. There is simply no air to air machine on earth with its capability. None. it has proven in exercise after exercise that it is what it is supposed to be. In a decidedly negative review published by ABC News, it was reported that its decided advantage was lost at the "merge," which is air to combat speak for the fly by resulting in a dogfight. What they mention, in passing, is that nobody gets to the merge unless the F-22 lets it. In other words, adversaries an destroyed beyond visual range by its passive sensors and missile capability which allow it to detect, identify and destroy an adversary before that adversary is aware of its existence. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/f-22-fighter-loses-79-billion-advantage-in-dogfights-report/ If you are a US fighter and you ever get to the merge, there has been some failure along the way. Further, what happens after the merge is most dependent on training and experience, along with airplane and weapons capability. Tough to predict, but not supposed to happen, and if it did, I would bet everything on the training and experience of US guys against any current adversary. Still, in my recollection, the last time US fighters had to engage at the merge was when two F-14's eliminated two Libyan Migs in 1981. The thought of spending that much money on an airplane and waiting until the merge is ancestor worship, and to my knowlege, has not occurred in over 30 years. The fight doesn't occur because the fight is over way before that.. I am unaware of any such fight in Iraq 1 or 2, or Afghanistan. The entire TopGun curriculum, as well as US Air Force fighter weapons school is directed towards getting the kill before the merge-way before the merge. As pointed out, there was a "mission creep" component to its development, (there always is), but its proven stealth capability and the added on ability to deliver air to ground weapons, albeit just a few, but very effective, is a net plus. 2. The A-10. There is a reason that the airplane was built with a titanium bathtub surrounding the cockpit, and the reason is that it needs one. The A-10 was an airplane built around a gun, the 30mm GAU 8. Initially designed as nothing but a tank killer, it is an extremely slow gun platform. Works great when you have air supremacy. Not so much when you have to fight your way in and out. Has served well when there is no real anti air threat, either from the ground or the air, but has never been in a real air to air threat environment. A close air support in a "we own the sky" airplane, and the ground for that matter, only environment. Regarding multi mission platforms, the more I think about it the more I realize that the evolution of the F-18, a tremendously successful airplane that the Navy did not initially want, points out that such worries are unfounded. The F-35 is not perfect, but its going to be really good at what it does, and it can do a lot. Back to the rpv question. What I think will happen is that a number of such things will carry offensive air to air weapons, or close air support weapons and be deployed in classic mission profiles. When a threat is detected, or a ground asset requires support, they will be called in and provide the same services that manned fighters do. I think its inevitable. Not for a bit, but inevitable..

Flight testing is going well, from what I've seen. The first Navy version has landed at sea both day and night. Regarding multi purpose air frames, as I recall the last one attempted was the F-111, and that failure was in the very early 60's. We are far more capable now, given advances on materials and software. But, back to the subject of rpv's, the Joint Strike Fighter may well be the last manned fighter. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

First, the F-35 is a tremendously capable airplane. Not the perfect air to air machine like the F-22, but an extremely capable air to air and more capable air to ground platform. Hopefully, it will be a successful replacement to the F-16/F-18 family. Regarding the question of drones, there are some extremely problematic issues when you consider using one in a dynamic air to air or air to ground engagement. As of now, there is no effective way to communicate in real time at the speed necessary in such an engagement, and as has been pointed out the uplink security is a very big issue. Speed is not an issue. You can build them to fly just as fast. The "G" thing isn't a really tough issue, because the biggest part of the G requirement is placed on the missile or whatever other offensive component is placed on the delivery platform. But....A very strong case can be made for using them if these very serious limitations are elliminated or reduced, since so much money is spent on each manned aircraft in strictly non mission realities of adequate life support, and search and rescue capability. Even existing manned aircraft, the F-22 for example have been grounded because of serious O2 problems. Has the last fighter pilot been born already? For the US, maybe.

On the national level, the most underrated was Robert James. Other teams simply avoided him. When you are truly exceptional, they make rule changes. Bob Gibson-lowering the mound. Robert James. Eviscerate the bump and run.

What I concluded from the Sapp comment was that he threw out an obvious justification, (it takes time), for a question he was not prepared for. I doubt preparation is his strength. His participation was a waste of time.

Because everything I learned about responsibility, perseverance, effort determines outcome and a host of other important life disciplines I learned from quiet moments alone, delivering the Courier Express in every imaginable weather situation for three years at 6am without ever missing a day from age 12-15. And, when I go back, people look you in the eye when they talk to you.

Yes they do, but you are not required to show it, at least in the state of Virginia. Almost any id will suffice, and if you refuse to show any, you simply sign an affirmation of identity. Showing ID speeds up the process tremendously. What kills me is the folks who want to give a political opinion sermon on the issue while others are waiting. The fact is, I don't really give a damn about what a voter thinks about existing law. I just want to get my 5am to 8pm volunteer work done and get out.

That is not true. I am an election official in Virginia and very familiar with ID requirements. A driver license, any gov id, a registration card, SS card or nearly any id will suffice. If you don't want to provide one, merely signing an affidavit claiming you are who you say you are will do.

Columbia, also known as Colombia? Great place.Top rate 33%. The US top rate is higher. Pick another example.

Maybe the more interesting and accurate conclusion relates to Wilson's health. He used to come to Buffalo for this sort of thing. Rounding up the top Lieutenants for a Detroit field trip, along with his game missing habit this season indicates a trend.

Close the Strait of Hormuz = close Iran. Wacky quotes from that place are a scheduled event.

It really is a fantastic project. I've been involved for nearly five years, building up a significant equity position all along the way. Important to note that this is a US company, and run by British/Canadian and US mining and minerals phd's, not market pump and dump types. During my first conversation with Kurtanjek over lunch in Santiago, I was literally doing mine metrics on the back of a napkin and I averred that I didn't see a way that they wouldn't get taken out before production by any number of large mine concerns, Rio Tinto most specifically. He has always known that was a possibility, but at a very significant premium. Now, I'm convinced they can maximize project value by taking it to production unless a just can't refuse offer comes. I believe they are taking longer than planned getting to bankable feasibility because the prospect of using the Fray electrolysis to provide titanium sponge/powder would dramatically impact final mine buildout, and obviously, project metrics. Again, I do know for certain there are many, many people willing to fund the build at very shareholder favorable rates. Its been fun to follow and fun to be involved in private placements. I'll see in a year or two how much it nets. If anyone looks at a cnbc website quote they can link to institutional owners ownership and they will see a 5.6 million block owned by Marathon Capital in Baltimore. Jim Kennedy runs the shop and he is a huge fan and I talk to him regularly as well to make sure we don't miss anything.

Sure, I'll share, with the disclaimer that I have quite a large position. The project revolves around concessions in the northern Chile area, (void from earthquakes so far). That area is a mining area. Initially, Phelps Dodge owned the concessions as a potential copper play. After a time they were interested in the titanium dioxide assets. After a time, Phelps Dodge decided to stick with copper dioxide exclusively, and move away from TIO2. During their time they hired the number one mines and minerals attorney in Chile to handle the eventual claims matters. When he became aware they were going to sell it he put together most of the current team which had in depth knowledge of the TIO2 production possibilities. They then formed White Mountain Titanium Corp. The site is located inland from a deep water sea port, and has readily available rail access to it. There are no major environmental issues. During this preparatory time, they also acquired, literally at courthouse auction, the Carolina Prospect which vastly increases rutile, the stuff you get TIO2 from, vastly multiplying their asset base. Bringing a mine on line is a vastly detailed undertaking and WMTM is at the last stage now, finishing up its bankable feasibility study. When that stud is complete, it will show the project to be very likely to be financially successful. A test mine built by SGS in Canada using WMTM's raw material and mine production model has already passed. with flying colors. While waiting for the completion of Bankable feasibility, the company and various end users have already signed four outtake contracts. The last one listed a price of $1200/metric ton. I can a tell you that the original plan was to be able to sell at about $400/mt. TIO2 prices have escalated significantly since project development. Once Bankable is complete, they will acquire the financing for mine buildout, a critical juncture and one I follow as closely as legally possible. At this point there is absolutely no problem with financing the buildout on very favorable terms as there are three separate sources that are interested, and at very favorable debt to equity rates. A few other notes. I know CEO Mike Kurtanjek quite well, and I talk to him regularly. I have subscribed to two of his private placements on the process to finance burnout rates. He is an extremely frugal guy, totally share holder driven. He has a great team on his board. He also has very strong Chilean political support and the locals can't wait to get started, As you may know, Chile is an extremely stable, mine friendly capitalist s country with a superb infrastructure. The project makes fantastic sense as a TIO2 stand alone mine, but they have figured out a way to make tons of money of the tailings by producing feldspar, used in the glass and ceramic industries. That would provide, essentially, free money. But....There's more. The company has been working with Cambridge Doctor Fray on a method of completely redefining the method of using TIO2 feedstock to eventually produce titanium sponge and titanium powder. There is massive demand for titanium sponge and powder in the avaition and medical fields, and end prices are a 12x (+/-), price advantage over the already highly profitable TIO2, used by Dupont and other major players in paints pigments and papers. Anyway, that the Cliff notes. I've been on this for five years and I chat with the players regularly. The stock has had a magical year, but once Bankable is done, and construction starts, it will get even greater visibility. Production is probably a late 2012date, but that's when it gets real interesting. Great management team. Always under promises and over delivers.

I'm up about 15%, but I expected this to be a slow two quarters for my pick.

5000 shares White Mountain Titanium @1.95. WMTM Might not work out in the six month time frame of this game, but I'm confident it will be fine.

Guard.

Jasper's strength is his freakish quickness. I have a friend whose son is being recruited at Bethel as a wrestler. He told me that Bethel is the only college in TN that offers wrestling scholarships. The wrestling coach, for whatever reason, showed him a tape of Jasper. He said the tape was unbelievable for a guy that size. Anyway, I digress. Jasper is huge, but his main asset is quickness. Twitch quickness. That's got to be worth about 30 pounds. I can't wait to see him.