this was implemented to provide cheap linden age verification and also to buy SL gold enable users to distinguish between established paid-for accounts and free alts which can be thrown away at any moment.

Posted by: cheap linden at August 26, 2008 03:59 AM

Premium players can purchase a promotion for their characters vocation once they have reached level 20 or above and they must pay a one time fee of 20,000 cheap Tibia Gold pieces in game once it is bought it will last as long as the player has premium.

Posted by: cheap Tibia Gold at August 26, 2008 03:58 AM

In light of these changes, the Dream World engine has been rebuilt for Age of Conan gold: Hyborian Adventures with new features, special effects and optimizations.

Posted by: Age of Conan gold at August 26, 2008 03:32 AM

The quests often reward you with Knight Noah and good items so that you don't have to save up a ton of Knight money to get decent armor etc.

Posted by: Knight money at August 26, 2008 03:30 AM

The quests often reward you with Knight Noah and good items so that you don't have to save up a ton of Knight money to get decent armor etc.

Posted by: Knight money at August 26, 2008 03:22 AM

watches replica

Posted by: watches replica at August 24, 2008 10:10 PM

At last if you want to buy this New RS game and want to buy your favourite equipment to buy runescape gold.

Posted by: buy runescape gold at August 14, 2008 03:27 AM

Characters have a variety of Tibia coins skills that will raise through training.

Posted by: Tibia coins at August 14, 2008 03:26 AM

Now I cherish the memory of my better friend who once help me and give me much more Silk road gold.

Posted by: Silk road gold at August 14, 2008 03:25 AM

Here is about what is Second Life. Let's come here to understand the depth of Second Life Lineden.

Posted by: Second Life Lineden at August 14, 2008 03:23 AM

rolex replica watches - $98 swiss , we don't sale replica watches.The Art of E-commerce

Posted by: replica watches at August 5, 2008 10:27 PM

At beginning , you are a poor, but don’t worried, the style of game give you a little habbo credits, it is very cheap, you can use them to buy equipment, you can use this equipment to exercise the rank, when you get to a certain rank valid, you don’t need the equipment, you should buy the better equipment. This time, you need the habbo gold.

Posted by: habbo credits at August 5, 2008 09:54 PM

I could remember the thing which I asked the other role sold the cheap last chaos gold to me to buy last chaos gold. And then I play lots of different role, when I saw the beautiful role, I was very happy. I like the feeling that everybody wear own beautiful cloth.

Posted by: buy last chaos gold at August 5, 2008 09:51 PM

I could remembered that when I first to the commercial city to buy cabal online alz clearly, I was so stupid, I could not entered the commercial city succeed and it always appearance mistake, so I bought the cabal alz instead.

Posted by: cabal online alz at August 5, 2008 09:47 PM

To guy who said that a fighter could shoot AA missles at an A-10 all day and have trouble taking it down and that fire and forget is suddenly worthless, what are you smoking?! The fact that the A-10 is a durable aircraft does not suddenly make fire & forget worthless, its durability would only force fighter pilots to launch an extra missile in order to shoot it down.

Where the fuck did you get the impression that the F-35 was going to replace the A-10? The F-35 is a multi-role fighter and would probably eventually replace the F-16(which is multi-role fighter also) just like the F-22(an air-superiority fighter) will eventually replace the F-15(also an air-superiority fighter).

Another thing regarding durability, the only reason why it designed to be so durable is because the job it performs requires aircraft that are durable. The F-22 is not built the same way because it can attack targets and destroy them long before the enemy even knows what hit them.

One last thing, since when did the U.S. military use 30mm for grenade launchers? NEVER!!! Grenade lauchers use 40mm rounds. If you don't believe me look up the M79, the M203, the XM320, the M32 MGL, and the Mk 19. Only the Russians have 30mm grenades in addition to 40mm. The U.S. only uses 30mm autocannon rounds which are used on the A-10 and the Apache, but will be used on the AC-130 and the Expeditionary Fighting Vechicle(EFV).

Posted by: Gio at July 8, 2008 03:29 PM

yesterday there was a top 10 figther planes and there were ranked by 5 catergorys

raptor was 10 deu to the cost
2 raptors can take down 12-16 f-15 (tested in a combat war game or w.e)

it cost alot but when u need to control the air it could be worth it
and it is ture that the USA is spending to much on war and defence but it will be worth it one day if we every get attacked

Posted by: hackdot at May 8, 2008 03:18 PM

The Raptor is undoubtedly a great plane
for air to air combat. The problem is we
can only afford 186 of them. That is a
ridiculously small number. The cost of
this aircraft is out of control.

Why do we need the Raptor? The Chinese
"threat"? The Chinese are not going to
defeat us in a military confrontation.
Why should they bother? We are bankrupting ourselves.

The US spends more on weapons than the
rest of the world combined. Yet we are
not buying security with all that money,
on the contrary we are hollowing out our
economy. The Iranians and Chinese are not
the threat. Our own impending bankruptcy
is.

The Raptor is symptomatic of our out of
control spending on the military.

Posted by: Mark Day at March 12, 2008 09:47 AM

The f-22 can take out an A-10 before the A-10 can even see on it's radar, well beyound 30 miles(if it can see it when it gets in range) and for the F-15 lets say this about it. One F-22 took on 5 f-15 on an air force war game and took each one out (that is locked on) before it could be locked on to. And for the facts its hard to take something down when its stealth which means it hard to be picked up on radar or be seen. And further more A-10 needs to much maintenance. And if you don't know as do everything does, as planes get older they fall apart more and more until they break down. Which the 16s 15s and A-10s are from the 80's and are aging aircraft and will need to retire. Anyway you people know nothing about the F-22 lot of the facts about it are classified and for material graphite(aka carbon fiber) and other composites are tougher than steel, Titanium and also stronger and don't rust like your loved planes do. And another fact the Raptor uses less full do to no after burner which if you don't know fighters go threw a lot. Don't get me wrong I do like all those aircraft but its hard to compete with mordern technology. And for price I will say this if you really know what is expensive the B-2 bomber which is almost 1.4 billion thats with a B each and they hardly ever get used. Now do the math people.

Posted by: unknown at November 4, 2007 06:53 AM

I am not a fighter pilot, just a civilian pilot who would have flown fighters if my eyes would have let me. I grew up around military aviation. My comment is this, I saw the Raptor demostration flight at Oshkosh Airventure in 2006. Forget the stealth, and the electronic capabilities, this airplane flew like no other aircraft I have every seen. I have been going to airshows, and performing in some for over 30 years and I have never seen a more maneuverable fighter. I leaned over to a friend of mine at the show and said, all this guy needs is rocks to through at the enemy and he will win. Nothing could touch this airplane in a dog fight. Air Superiority should always be the choice for the US. As soon as we forget that lesson, some country will come along and remind us.

Posted by: Crash at July 10, 2007 08:11 AM

I'm an eightteen year old whose dream from the age of six has been to fly the A-10 Thunderbolt II (A.K.A. Warthog). I first learned about it in incidents that the pilots were in. The incident that really got me to want to fly it was a report from a pilot who lost an engine, part its tail (Rudders, and Elevators), a wing, and the wing he still had left, had a SAM (Surface to Air Missile) stuck in it. Unforturnatly I'm still in high school, and my chances of getting to fly one become slimmer every year. I Like The Strike Eagle, And The Raptor, But I Don't Think Either Is Able To Safely Support The Infantry As Much As The A-10 Can.

Posted by: Keith G. Davis III at March 15, 2007 09:27 AM

Mr. Sprey is a great talent, but with complete respect for him I still have to point out that the USAF and just about every other air force in the world has long since rejected his hyper-lean keep it simple fighter philosophy. He never got over the idea that the ideal thing is to make a better Mig-17. I have to point out that by the end of the Vietnam war, 40,000 lb. Phantoms with big radars, tons of fuel and huge fuel consumption rates were killing MiG-17s at a rate of 10 to 1. Maybe all those BVRMs, radars, computers and jammers are worth something after all?

Posted by: John Morse at March 12, 2007 02:55 PM

>Well Nicholas lets take that A10 and put it in a >high air threat environment -- one where we do >not have Air superiority much less Air >supremacy... Its a sitty duck!

The A-10 Warthog was designed to be a sitting duck. It can fly with half a wing, 1 engine, no landing gear, the pilot sits in 4" of titanium steel tub (toughest metal known to man), and guess what? the MINIMUM caliber for PENATRATION against the Warthog is 30MM!!!

30mm is the round we use in GRENADE LAUNCHERS. If you ask me, that's a f***** hell of a bad@$$ round.

The 20mm machinegun fitted on most superior aircraft would simply "bounce off"; shooting a sub-machinegun at a tank isn't very effective.

Also, a fighter could shoot AA missiles all day and have difficulty taking it down. "Fire-and-forget" is suddenly worthless.

Worse, the 30mm used on the A-10 (using depleted uranium) causes TANKS to EXPLODE! Shoot... what... 20 bullets of that at an F-22 (or F-35 for that matter which is supposed to replace the A-10), it blows up to kingdom come.

The very first crash accident the F-22 experienced was at take off. It lifted off the ground, the vectored thrusters accidentally activated, and less than 10 meters from the ground it crashes, cracks, and parts of it exploded. The A-10 was DESIGNED to land without any landing gear (thus, on its belly), and would probably be virtually unharmed in the same accident.

In addition, the F-35 can't carry the payload an A-10 can (11 hardpoints). Also, try flying a superiorly fast, supersonic aircraft between buildings of downtown, and keep up with the very slow A-10.

Posted by: Colonel Marksman at February 17, 2007 02:48 AM

I've only got about 5000 hours in fighters: 86, 102,104,f4 and a tour flying F4s in VietNam so maybe my view isn't worth that of Sprey and Stevenson; I'd just ask them - have you ever fought another airplane? I'd ask the Army - have you ever been under air attack? I'd also ask Congress - why did you drag out the program so long? In my considered opinion stealth is the only way to go. I've used (and taught!) radar to find the opposition for maybe twenty years and found it invaluable in getting the advantage. A non-radar airplane in the old days was a pigeon waiting to be plucked; nowadays a non-stealthy airplane is in the same pickle; just another target.
My 2 cents worth - Gunfighter 41

Posted by: Walt Bjorneby at August 21, 2006 09:07 PM

Its really a question of fixed costs.

The problem with the raptor is really one of fixed costs.

There is a certain cost for just development and research that will be X billion dollars no matter how many units you build.

In the Raptor's case that cost has to be amortized over only a 186 units! So of course the Raptor will be expensive so few fighters have been built that the original tooling and R&D costs have to be amortizied over only 186 units!

Versus amortizing tooling and R&D for 2,000 versus the F-16 so yes this alone would affect cost.

Also another thing would be scale of manufacturing. With only 186 planes the costs of setting up production lines to create parts will be enormous. Since the quantities will be very small and tooling and setup costs could be fixed.

This is probably why the JSF will kick the Raptor's ass. At least from an economic POV.

The JSF is spread out of 2,000 units so you can imagine what the per unit tooling and R&D costs are going to be like compared the Raptor.

The Raptor could be a great and cost effective project but the AF needs to commit to buying a more units. Hell let the Army buy a few and use them for air ground mission. I don't think they would mind and it would bring down project costs.

Personally I think its an economics question and buying more units definitely makes the Raptor more affordable.

Posted by: Alex at August 20, 2006 06:57 AM

The Sprey and Stevenson anti-Raptor slideshows (linked above) are very biased and one-sided. They use emotional jabs like Pearl Harbor and a haughty picture of two USAF general officers to convince their listeners that the USAF is clueless when it comes to building a fighter! They stoop as far as using the downing of one F-117 in the AWOS as evidence that we don't need stealth. Did they ever think that the reason we didn't fly their beloved F-16's on those particular missions is because we knew we'd lose far more if we had? Well, the truth is, they are just whining in their beer because the USAF chose a different path than the one they supported. They did have "some" valid points such as cost and quantity, but that's not the F-22A designers' fault, and then they discredit themselves with the rest of their shenanigans. Consider their overstated point about the importance for a gun – how many air-to-air kills in the last 3 decades have been by a gun? How about zero! And then to insult our intelligence even more, they put up a silly picture of the small jet next to an F-22A that you “couldn’t see at first glance”. Go back and notice the varying background in that scene. It just happened to hide the small jet while the Raptor was stuck out over the plains! Any jet would have stood out against that background. Let’s face it, the F-22A is built to combat a slightly more capable and sophisticated foe than these two gentlemen understand - and I for one am glad it is in OUR inventory.

Posted by: Billy Moore at August 18, 2006 03:31 PM

The F-22 is designed to fight the air war that might exist in the next 30 years. After that, technology and other factors will require a new direction. The problem is that the U.S. military knows that it has to train and equip to fight wars in any environment. The critics of course only look at the "now". And in the end, the critics usually win. Costs are costs and they are only going to go up. The critics know this. That is their weapon.

Posted by: Dave at August 18, 2006 07:33 AM

WHY don't we rely on the Pilots that have Flown other Fightes to tell us wheather the F-22 gives them an edge in warfare.Hugh!
All these designers have their opinions, but it is the Pilots that fly them that would know best. If they say it's a failure, then we stop the train. But from what I read, the Pilots say it's the beast chance we have. Done Deal..Shut up

Posted by: Larry at August 17, 2006 09:50 PM

Noah,

You think fighting in those areas is hard now, wait until you're getting shot from the air.

Posted by: Brian at August 15, 2006 09:01 AM

Nick,

Which would I rather have for ground support? Well, it depends where I need to hit, doesn't it? An A-10 doesn't do me any good at all if I'm looking to hit something deep into the interior of a well defended country. And Tomahawks are great, as long as you've got a few hours to program them, and you know exactly where your target is, and you don't need to use it for anything else.

4 F-15s? I love the F-15. It's an awesome aircraft, and I'll always have a soft spot for it. But if you want to go that route, instead of buying 4 F-15s, why don't we buy 40 F-4s? Or 400 P-51s? Why don't we? Because in contested airspace, the F-15 cannot give you the assurance that its weapons will be delivered. The Raptor can. As a planner, I'd rather have the assurance that the Raptor would deliver its payload than take a chance that the F-15s would maybe get it there.

We don't need gobs of bombs anymore anyway. One 1000 pounder delivered accurately is enough to do any job short of bunker-busting, and that's something no fighter can handle.

The F-22 is an air dominance fighter, make no mistake. And it performs that mission better than any aircraft that has ever existed. But to sell it to Congress, you've got to make it look more flexible. It's worth buying the Raptor just to get the air-to-air capabilities. The rest is just gravy.

Posted by: Brian at August 15, 2006 08:58 AM

"As long as you own the air," Raptor jockey Captain Phil Colomy said, "you have the freedom to do what you want on the ground."

Except of course for Iraq, Afghanistan, South Lebanon, Mogadishu, etc.

Posted by: Noah at August 15, 2006 08:23 AM

The F-22 has value above and beyond what it can fight. Its long range penetration capabilities are so powerful that it forces adversaries to fundamentally restructure not only their air defense, but also their internal logistics and supply chain.

They now have to assume that any link, anywhere, is vulnerable all the time, with no warning.

That is of tremendous value.

Still I don't know if it's 1/3 of a billion per airframe in value.

Posted by: secret asian man at August 14, 2006 04:35 PM

Ladies, Ladies

Just becuase the AF is talking up an ability to drop bombs doesn't mean they're putting the A-10 in a head-to-head witht eh A-10. The F-22's ground-attack profile is Long-Range Penetrating Strike and SEAD in high-threat environments. The A-10's ground-attack profile is CAS and tank-busting at low-medium altitude.

True, in payload and Long-War terms, the F-22's ground-pounding pales in comparison to the A-10, but then how well does the A-10 fare with 2 sidewinders Vs. A fourth- or fifth-gen fighter?

Sprey's thinking is still based around visual-range dogfighting and NOE bombing runs. Those missions still exist, the F-16 and A-10 have in many ways set the bar for them. But they are not the ONLY missions anymore, and when we go up against high-threat environments we'll want a plane designed specifically for them.

Posted by: Moose at August 14, 2006 03:30 PM

Sprey is right to say that USAF needs to invest in a next-generation air superiority fighter. It is prudent to have something like the F-22 on hand to hedge against low-probability, high-risk scenarios (war with a country that has good air assets and defenses).

The US experience in Iraq and Afghanistan also demonstrates the need for more and better close-in air support platforms. Considering the size of USAF's procurement budget when compared to other air forces, these two needs shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive.

The problem is that USAF can't put its air and ground attack spending in proportion with the threat environment. They are splurging to get a smaller, more expensive fleet of F-22s out of the hangar when their current air-to-air fleet is in good shape. It seems like they are underinvesting in solid air-to-ground platforms at a time when they are needed.

I'm no flyboy and I'm not totally against the F-22 - but it definitely feels like USAF is pulling a rush job because the Raptor is what every fighter jock dreams off.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at August 14, 2006 03:08 PM

For those saying Sprey is stupid for comparing the F-22 to the A-10, I don't think he's suggesting that the A-10 can do the F-22's job. More than anyone, I think Sprey understands that well-designed single-tasking planes will always beat out well-designed multi-tasking ones, and that air-to-air is a fundamentally different mission than air-to-ground. His argument is predicated that the mission that the A-10 was built for is more important for winning modern wars than the one the F-22 was built for. The greatest epoxy in the world doesn't do me a lot of good if what I really need is a paper clip. You may disagree with that assertion, but then you can attack that assertion rather than erroneous attributions.

If anything, it seems that it's the F-22 that's being presented as something that can do the A-10's job, with the recent emphasis on its air-to-ground capabilities (remember when it was the "F/A-22 Raptor"?). However, not all air-to-ground missions are created equal. The A-10 may be many things, but "stealthy" is not one of them, and they needed the Wild Weasels to stuff HARMs down Iraqi SAM sites during Desert Storm so they could pound the Iraqi Army in turn.

In any event, Axe is getting the word from the pilots' mouths and this is only part 1 in the series. It seems kind of dangerous to start nitpicking stuff when he's so far from being done, eh?

Looking forward to the rest of the series.

Posted by: Edward Liu at August 14, 2006 12:49 PM

I like how the article faile to mention that Spey developed the A-10 as well. Spey gets annoying- "we have all the right ideas- the Air Force is incompetant"

F22's seem like a waste now- but they could be useful against a China or nuke-armed Iran- it will fly until 2040 or so- we need something to keep our air dominance

Posted by: Your Daddy at August 14, 2006 12:41 PM

Comparing the F22 with A10s or cruise missiles as a ground pounder may be unfair, unless the F22 crowd is talking up its ability to hit ground targets! As a military planner, which would you rather have to hit targets on the ground: 1 F22, with a grand total of 2 1000lb bombs or 4 500lb bombs? 20 A-10s? or 400 tactical tomahawk cruise missiles?

And the problem is, the F22 doesn't replace the F15 one-to-one, let alone the originally envisioned YF16 light-weight-fighter.

In FY98$, the F15 costs $43 million. So if you want constant dollars, you get 1 F22 for every 4 F15s. Or spend 4x as much.

And for what? The stealth features are great, but against a 3rd-class opponent are unnecessary, and against China? Who wants to bet that China is already developing (if not yet deploying) multipath radar/celldar.

Both scattering-based stealth and anti-radar tactics fail in the face of multipath radar, and the Chinese (and everyone else) know this. Even without the threat of stealth aircraft, multipath radar is necessary for China if they want to counter the US air-superiority doctrine which involves, in part, taking out any AA radar sites.

Posted by: Nicholas weaver at August 14, 2006 11:58 AM

Nick,

The F-16 outperforming the F-15 in air-to-air? Wherever did you hear such a silly idea? Oh, according to Sprey. The guy who designed the F-16. "Oh, if only they'd let me build a PURE air-to-air fighter, this surely would have outperformed the jet that has set the gold standard for air-to-air combat. And it would have been cheaper, too. And it would have orally satisfied the pilots as it flew, as well."

Whatever.

The A-10 is a great plane. A tugboat is a great boat. But an A-10 is not a fighter, and a tugboat is not an aircraft carrier.

Posted by: Brian at August 14, 2006 11:46 AM

The F-22 is a high tech penetrating vehicle. That's what it's designed for. Recon maps out the radar systems, the 22 slips in and out and delivers the payloads. A large part of research and development these days is focused on big bangs in small packages. Smaller missiles and bombs that produce less collateral damage and more lethal damage on the target. When you have such munitions, the value in the plane delivering them is seen in how stealthy it is and how efficiently it can move fast. The F-22 is nearly perfect in this respect. And when you are able to carry about twice as much explosive power and lethal force with the same wieght as before, the number of planes filling that role that you need goes down as well.

Posted by: DS at August 14, 2006 11:19 AM

The F-22 is a bad bird. I will be able to stop anything the enemy can throw at it in the air. It is a air dominance fighter not a ground pounder like the A-10, the USAF needs to replace the F-15 on a one to one basis with the 22, and build new A-10s with advanced aviaonics and new engines, to be the ground pounder we need. Sprey is dumb to try and compare to aircraft with different missions, thats is why the A-10 is designated with an "A" for attack and the 22, with "F" for fighter.

Posted by: John at August 14, 2006 10:59 AM

Which approach would result in Air Force officers getting jobs as highly-paid "consultants" (or as company executives) after they leave the service?

a) Supporting upgrades of A10's and current fighters for chump change.

b) Supporting a sexy, big-buck project that results in large profits for certain defense companies.

Posted by: JIDude at August 14, 2006 09:55 AM

OK.

a: Thats what F16s or F16 successors are for.

This is part of Sprey's argument: Air superiority is fundimentally different from Air to Ground. One of the things which really, REALLY hacked-off Boyd and Sprey was the F16s adaption to air-to-ground duty: as a pure air-to-air, it would have been much lighter, even longer range (better fuel fraction), and cheaper.

But, according to the conspiracy theorists, having the vastly cheaper F16 outperform the pure air-to-air F15 would have been a political disaster, and thus the addition of air-to-ground duties.

And the F22 was actually designed with pure air to air in mind. With only carrying 2 1000lb bombs (all stores must be internal for stealth), this really isn't much firepower, or able to hit very many targets.

But lets assume the USAF doesn't have air superiority at all. So

b: OK, lets pick Door #2: Low cost cruise missiles. $500k/copy Tomahawks (complete with in-flight retargeting). You'd have to fly 250 missions! a plane, at $0/mission operating costs, to equal the equal-dollar target hitting capability.

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at August 14, 2006 09:51 AM

Well Nicholas lets take that A10 and put it in a high air threat environment -- one where we do not have Air superiority much less Air supremacy... Its a sitty duck!

Posted by: David at August 14, 2006 09:13 AM

Lets see.

An A10 can carry 16,000 lbs of bombs, can be tough enough for low altitude visual-based operation, and has an additional 1100 rounds of 30mm depleated uranium whup-ass.

Oh, and costs ~$13M a plane.

Compare with the F22 raptor, which carries 2 1000 lb bombs. ANd costs, (well, at minimum) at least $260M a plane.

Lets see, what would happen if you cut 6 F22s, use 1 F22 $/unit for an advanced A10 avionics package so it can use all the l33t sensor packages and guided muinitions that have been developed for the F18, and buy 100 A10s.

Which would the guys on the ground like better?

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at August 14, 2006 08:56 AM

> it's the aircraft's air-to-ground
> prowess that Field and Colomy are
> most excited about.

I would be "excited" about that too if my program were facing the criticims that the F-22 is currently facing. It seems to be a bit of a turnaround from the "not a pound for air-to-ground" philosophy that ruled the F-22 program for 20 years.

Not Really

Posted by: Not Really at August 14, 2006 07:26 AM