You can choose your favourite Lineden. You can easily begin selling it to buy second life linden other residents.

Posted by: Lineden at August 19, 2008 01:15 AM

My friends always buy second life linden from this company. Because there are several kinds of Secondlife linden in the company.

Posted by: buy second life linden at August 19, 2008 01:14 AM

Now I tell you that a web site http://www.gameim.com supply Cheap metin2 gold and Cheap metin2 yang.

Posted by: Cheap metin2 gold at August 19, 2008 01:13 AM

Of course the Metin2 yang can bring funs. I believed that you will love this Metin2 gold new game.

Posted by: Metin2 yang at August 19, 2008 01:12 AM

So I spent some mabinogi gold to study. After school study the lovable gray wolf became collapses at the first blow.

Posted by: mabinogi gold at August 14, 2008 01:01 AM

I also thought that I was not RMB players, did not know how to lead our brothers, and I also did not have a large of hero online money.

Posted by: hero online money at August 14, 2008 12:59 AM

Remember we just met with each other by chance, we practiced the level and made last chaos gold together.

Posted by: last chaos gold at August 14, 2008 12:58 AM

Finally, I gained have sufficed the LOTRO Gold, had the family. We were in together finally.

Posted by: LOTRO Gold at August 14, 2008 12:55 AM

I know that you are not a sloppy person, you have your aspiration, have your ideal. You will not care the game Habbo gold. Therefore you are doomed to leave Habbo, leave friends who these share some hardships, and leave me who am lonely apprentice.

Posted by: Habbo gold at August 14, 2008 12:50 AM

NPC in the game because of the economic system do not participate, Production of materials you must have bought only other players to earn potbs gold, but the spoils of war can be sold to NPC direct access to cash, its strong liquidity. You can use those in exchange for potb money.

Posted by: potbs gold at August 7, 2008 11:30 PM

And I have experienced many matters, also met many friends, I have been deceived to buy isk by the unprincipled person, but I have been rescued also by the friends of mine.

Posted by: buy isk at August 5, 2008 07:12 PM

nice to meet you

Posted by: cheap wow gold at April 14, 2008 01:50 AM

Ward,

How much actual stick time do you have in the Osprey?

Posted by: GJB at November 4, 2007 09:03 AM

I'm surprised they are prop driven, anything prop driven would have a likelier chance of getting hit by a stinger or so. And if they are worried about the Blackhawks falling like a brick when getting hit then why not have an emergency chute built in above the blades or on the tail to slow its descent. I just dont like the way those huge props on the 22 are! Big and bulky, what if one of the engines gets hit by a rocket or so while flying horizontally then most likely the props will slice the front half of the aircraft from the back section or you'll get a prop blade sliced into the aircraft, either way it spells disaster! I'm not trying to harp ,but i'm just looking at the physical properties of the aircraft!

Posted by: judge1 at November 4, 2007 02:18 AM

I'm surprised they are prop driven, anything prop driven would have a likelier chance of getting hit by a stinger or so. And if they are worried about the Blackhawks falling like a brick when getting hit then why not have an emergency chute built in above the blades or on the tail to slow its descent. I just dont like the way those huge props on the 22 are! Big and bulky, what if one of the engines gets hit by a rocket or so while flying horizontally then most likely the props will slice the front half of the aircraft from the back section or you'll get a prop blade sliced into the aircraft, either way it spells disaster! I'm not trying to harp ,but i'm just looking at the physical properties of the aircraft!

Posted by: node at November 4, 2007 02:17 AM

I'm surprised they are prop driven, anything prop driven would have a likelier chance of getting hit by a stinger or so. And if they are worried about the Blackhawks falling like a brick when getting hit then why not have an emergency chute built in above the blades or on the tail to slow its descent. I just dont like the way those huge props on the 22 are! Big and bulky, what if one of the engines gets hit by a rocket or so while flying horizontally then most likely the props will slice the front half of the aircraft from the back section or you'll get a prop blade sliced into the aircraft, either way it spells disaster! I'm not trying to harp ,but i'm just looking at the physical properties of the aircraft!

Posted by: node at November 4, 2007 02:04 AM

I'm surprised they are prop driven, anything prop driven would have a likelier chance of getting hit by a stinger or so. And if they are worried about the Blackhawks falling like a brick when getting hit then why not have an emergency chute built in above the blades or on the tail to slow its descent. I just dont like the way those huge props on the 22 are! Big and bulky, what if one of the engines gets hit by a rocket or so while flying horizontally then most likely the props will slice the front half of the aircraft from the back section or you'll get a prop blade sliced into the aircraft, either way it spells disaster! I'm not trying to harp ,but i'm just looking at the physical properties of the aircraft!

Posted by: Node at November 4, 2007 02:01 AM

Although VP Cheney is a ghastly Jack O Lantern on the latest New Yorker cover, there is one thing he did right as SecDefense in the early 90s. He tried to cancel the V22 Osprey (Gooney Bird?) four times. The army did not want it in 1992. The Time cover story of Oct 8 '07 is revealing and Business Week has a story about the civilian version. If just one crashes, it will be a Pentagon nightmare. Hell, a German version, the Weser 1003, was on drawing boards in WWII. How about the number of marine pilots who have died in the AV8 Harrier jump jet?

Posted by: Michael at October 31, 2007 05:21 PM

Sorry Ward,

Thought you were upset by the cracks about Time and AP. I have been using the Grandjester handle for about 4 years and it seem to fit (nice one on the "clown" comment, never heard that one before), and it's no big mystery. Google me, I have a semi-complete Bio over at Military.com too. Hell, I have been commenting here for over a year, and you will find that there are three things that I have been consistant in my criticism of: MRAP, F-35 and yes, your baby, V-22.

Ward, believe it or not, I generally enjoy your writing and knowing the 22 is your soft spot, I have hammered on it, so I apologize if I have crossed a line.

Posted by: Grandjester at October 24, 2007 04:04 PM

Sting? Is that what it is? No, I don't think so. I've been slammed by better than you . . . although I don't know you, do I? So maybe you're the BEST I've ever been slammed by.

Could. Well. Be.

But it would be great when you had something to say, you would just say it and leave the ad hominem stuff out of it.

Or don't. It's a free blog, after all.

And what's with the secret identity? You can cheapshot me with everything that lives in the public record but I have to believe you have a clue based on what? Because you say so . . . Grand . . . jester? Or is that really your name, like Cher or Madonna?

Or is there something else going on here . . . something totally disturbing and traumatic that prevents you from coming forward with your true self?

No, I doubt it. It's nothing but weak sauce.

But, whatever. Every circus needs clowns (even angry ones) along with peanut vendors.

Posted by: Ward at October 24, 2007 02:38 PM

Ward,

Stings, don't it? What the F does my TONE have to do with it? You got punked by Time and AP and DESPITE being johnny on the spot, PAX vet, 22 apologist/spokesman, you and the other cheerleaders HAVE NO ANSWER, and respond with shiny, happy BS about a platform that is "troubled" AT BEST. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, justifies this airframe. Despite not having worked directly on this program, I have worked in the Defense industry long enough to recognize good money being thrown after bad.

As YOU YOURSELF HAVE PUT IT. This thing WILL GET (MORE) MARINES KILLED.

Posted by: Grandjester at October 24, 2007 08:48 AM

GJ:

Tell us how you come into your wisdom. Have you ever been to Pax or New River or Edwards and talked to the folks involved with the program? Have you ever actually seen a V-22 not to mention ridden in one?

And can you tell us how budgets work and how requirements are established and how OPEVALS are conducted and how IOC is determined?

If not, you are cleared to chill the hell out.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but your tone sucks.

Posted by: Ward at October 23, 2007 08:34 PM

I thought the Time Mag article was a total hit piece... "no forward firing weapons" (neither does the CH-46, 47 or UH-60 (at least not as normally configured)... unable to autorotate after losing both engines (note: M/CH-47s apparently don't autorotate after being hit by RPG's either and they glide exactly like a brick)... it just sort of went on and on from there.

Admittedly, it would be nice if they could fit GeCal .50 Gatling guns on the tail ramp and somewhere along the sides that they wouldn't shoot out the engines/propellers, and maybe for even more fun stick some podded .50 cal's on the side a-la the B25 commerce raiders of WWII.

One thing I haven't heard about yet - with the Marine's tentatively proposing to go it alone in Afghanistan, how is the high altitude vertical performance of the Osprey?

Posted by: SGT Jeff (USAR) at October 23, 2007 11:13 AM

Yeah Ward,

Wah wah, Time misqoted me, wah wah, AP took my comments out of context.

Dennis and all the other out there who keep callinf the Osprey "new", that is absolute crap.

This technology was demo'd by the XV-3 over 50 years ago, the two-engine variant XV-15 flew in 1972 (the Soviet attempt, Ka-22, was in the early 60's). Osprey was spec'd in 1981, still took nearly a decade to fly and has had nothing but problems since.

All of the comparisons made to this craft don't even come close. Mane another craft with 50 years of development, name another craft that has killed 30 Marines during testing. We went from Mercury to Apollo and the moon for less money and less loss of life. These thing cost as much as an F-22 and HAVE NO ARAMAMENT (that pea-shooter out the ass doesn't count for a damn thing during an assault).

And of course, no ACTUAL reports from the field.

Ridiculous.

Posted by: Grandjester at October 23, 2007 10:01 AM

"pedantic poseur"
hehe...That's gonna leave a mark.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at October 21, 2007 09:35 PM

Dave:

Fair question. And in spite of the invective tossed by a pedantic poseur who is obviously late to the party, we did frame the discussion a few months ago.

Check out this link:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003365.html

Funny how people label you a "supporter" or "critic" based on your last post. (In certain Marine Corps circles I'm a "critic," by the way.) Quite a binary world, ain't it?

Posted by: Ward at October 21, 2007 07:15 PM

Chris:

It's not a long flight if you transit over Saudi Arabia, which they did. I did that trek with a pair of Tomcats in '95 . . . barely cleared the Ditch and launched for Al Jabar, Kuwait. Fun times!

Posted by: Ward at October 21, 2007 07:06 PM

nevermind, i see the Gulf of Aqaba is in the Red Sea, not the Persian Gulf... seems like an awefully long trip to Iraq from there... but it solves the Iranian question.

Thanks, great site as always.

Posted by: Chris at October 21, 2007 04:46 PM

Complete outsider here just looking for info.... if those mountains in the background are Iranian, then how wide is the Gulf and where's the border?? Cuz by my reckoning that shoreline is less than 20 miles away.. would launching active operations in a 2nd country, from the waters of an unfriendly 3rd be deemed provocative? Or just a matter of course as long as you don't ram an Iranian gunboat while you're at it?

Posted by: Chris at October 21, 2007 04:40 PM

Ward,

Np. I appreciate you giving the MV-22B attention. We need this platform, although I admit I'm not in the group that is sold on it.

I'll be interested to see how the logistics support for the MV-22B goes, with all the industry assistance and the reality they deployed extra mechanics and personal, I'm curious if the cost of deployment for the MV-22 is just one more case where the USMC emphasis (note difference between emphasis and presence) of the MV-22B as the sole medium lift replacement is really the best way ahead.

Posted by: Galrahn at October 20, 2007 02:57 PM

It's all you guys, Mark and Galrahn. Keep keeping us honest.

Posted by: Ward at October 20, 2007 09:51 AM

Ward:
I was going to comment last night that the mountain range in the background didn't match the Straight of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. Then I thought hard and tried to remember the topography of the Gulf of Oman. It didn't quite match either. Now its listed as the Gulf of Aquaba, and that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for making the correction.

Posted by: Mark Pyruz at October 19, 2007 08:31 PM

Quite frankly, Dennis, your outlook demonstrates the difference between those who've been there and done that and the others who seldom leave the house but have been given a soapbox by virtue of the Internet.

It's refreshing to hear from a fleet player. Thanks for keeping 'em flying.

Posted by: Ward at October 19, 2007 05:26 PM

I totally agree with Dennis on that. Heck we haven't even seen if the V-22s can take enemy fire and keep flying. People forget about the thing having wings, it will glide a heck of a lot better than a Blackhawk. I would fly in a V-22 into combat anyday, with my M-16, and M-9 by my side. I see unlimited potential for the V-22, heck think of water insertions, or CSAR. Dang thing baby has serious potential.

Posted by: 22lr at October 19, 2007 03:12 PM

Come on Springbored,
I agree "warts and all" should be shown, but I once helped a fellow F-14 squadron try and get deployed. They were in sad shape.
From Oceana to San Diego they left a string of broken down craft...3 of the twelve did not make it cross country.
Sad and pathetic, but no-one was blogging that the F-14 should be scrapped.
My squadron was the unfortunate one that found out that if an F-14 with the new engines was left at afterburner for long periods of time, at sea level, they blow up.
A lot of F-14's crashed over their lifetime. But we had a mission.
I am not saying we should not put equipment under the microscope and we should not continue to make equipment better.
But it gets tiring seeing people be super critical of things that are inherently dangerous.
The Osprey is brand new technology. They are going to have problems, they will crash, people will die.
How many test pilots died pushing the frontiers of aircraft? Early helicopters?
Does that mean their sacrifice was in vain?
No, they gave us the means to defeat the Axis in WW2, and stare down the Soviets.
The men putting their lives on the line going into combat in the Osprey give or forces a strategic advantage no other fighting force in the world has.
As the rest of the world buys and steals our technology in a game of catch up, we need to innovate.
We should not be slowed by a "better safe than sorry" mentality when it comes to technological development.
Other countries are watching us and they do not play it safe.

Posted by: Dennis at October 19, 2007 02:29 PM

Noted the caption...And no mention of the Osprey breakdown in Jordan, neither....or you gotta go to a reputable blog to get that kinda news? Like mine!

Really. You guys must decide if defensetech is just another advocacy/political milblog or a trusted uber-blog that frames debate for readers and the milblog community. If the latter, then changes need to be made.

How can you have a discussion like Dave wants if you don't report this porgram's warts, farts and fumbles?

Posted by: springbored at October 19, 2007 01:01 PM

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=51723

Maybe the caption regarding the location is more accurate.

Posted by: Galrahn at October 19, 2007 11:42 AM

@ Ismel

more payload than what?

Posted by: C. Foskey at October 19, 2007 11:19 AM

Well our marines are alreaady there. We just have to put our trust in thier abilities and training. I believe that it is the right purchase for it's intended mission, I mean look at what the osprey can do more payload, more speed, lands like a heli.... I don't know thats just my opinion.

Posted by: Ismel at October 19, 2007 10:53 AM

I'd like to know the opinion of people with experience and knowledge in this area:

Do you think the Osprey is the right purchase for it's intended missions, or is it a gold-plated mistake?

Posted by: Dave at October 19, 2007 10:29 AM

I very much doubt that Ospreys are being launched from points that - from the photo - would clearly be well within Iranian territorial waters ( the topography on the Omani side is relatively flat ).

The launch point is, if you care to ponder the picture, almost certainly the Gulf of Aqaba.

Posted by: dan at October 19, 2007 09:03 AM

"According to squadron lore, the unit was originally called the Thunder Eagles, but the name got mistranslated in Vietnam, and the new moniker stuck. The squadron emblem shows a war bird that looks more like a fiercely determined eagle, clutching lightning bolts in its talons."

http://op-for.com/2006/06/thunder_chickens_prepare_for_l.html

Posted by: David Hambling at October 19, 2007 05:06 AM

Who came up with Thunder Chickens, give that guy/gal a raise. I cant wait to hear how effective they will be.

Posted by: 22lr at October 18, 2007 07:43 PM

Penta,

Wiki: VMM-263
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMM-263

YouTubed: V-22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL3x2kiNjL8

Posted by: Camp at October 18, 2007 05:56 PM

Thunder Chickens.

Best. Name. Ever.

Might there be a link to a unit patch about?

Posted by: Penta at October 18, 2007 04:15 PM

Good info from the guys in theater Ward...I would "assume" that logistical rather than tactical missions (maybe with the exception of medivacs) will be the rule of thumb until factors like dust, heat etc are deemed safe. But like you reported --so far so good.

Posted by: Solomon at October 18, 2007 04:00 PM