Call bs

Post #346,978 by beepster 8/30/11 6:43:01 AM Reply	Call bs A c130 is not a weapon. It's a big empty plane. But of course you bought the spin...cause it suits you. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,011 by S1mon_Jester 8/30/11 1:47:12 PM Reply	A C130 isn't a weapon...but then again, an F-16 isn't a weapon either. It's just a fast, single seat aircraft. (It's the guns, missiles and rockets that make it a weapon) And you have to admit, the C130 can be used to drop BLU-82Bs. If we wanted to sell a "big empty aircraft" - we could've sold him 757s from Boeing.
Post #347,014 by beepster 8/30/11 2:11:44 PM Reply	continued BS they are cargo aircraft. The armed versions have an M in front...MC-130E, for example...and no mention was made on any armaments..only the plane Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,018 by folkert 8/30/11 2:41:51 PM Reply	The M form of the plane has a kit. Or... well, I guess nobody mentioned that.
Post #347,020 by Another Scott 8/30/11 2:46:36 PM Reply	Used by military organizations. They aren't Piper Cubs used for pleasure trips. http://www.af.mil/in...ctsheet.asp?id=92 HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #347,021 by beepster 8/30/11 2:50:20 PM Reply	Its not armaments so they weren't secretly planning to "arm" him, as the article states. Selling a cargo plane, even one that carries military gear...is not "arming" a leader. that's the spin..and its not accurate. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,023 by Another Scott 8/30/11 2:57:19 PM Reply	Hmmm.... http://www.merriam-w...tionary/armaments Definition of ARMAMENT 1 : a military or naval force [...] Origin of ARMAMENT French armement, from Latin armamenta (plural) utensils, military or naval equipment, from armare First Known Use: 1699 Try again? Cheers, Scott.
Post #347,029 by beepster 8/30/11 3:30:35 PM Reply	forget it not worth it. its spun. you know it. I know it. A C130 doesn't kill anyone...not the equivalence of a tank, gun, missile, bomb...etc...even though the author would like you to believe that from the title Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,033 by Another Scott 8/30/11 3:43:22 PM Reply	Why are you trying to defend him?
Post #347,038 by beepster 8/30/11 4:58:56 PM Reply	Not the point its a hit piece. Don't care who the names are. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,043 by Another Scott 8/30/11 5:08:41 PM Reply	Then don't read Politico. Works for me. ;-)
Post #347,045 by beepster 8/30/11 5:35:12 PM Reply	Well.. ..You didn't link it..but seemed to support it Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,046 by Another Scott 8/30/11 5:39:13 PM Reply	I was arguing with you. Doesn't mean I like Politico.
Post #347,048 by beepster 8/30/11 5:44:11 PM Reply	Ayup. That much I gathered. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,024 by Ashton 8/30/11 3:04:40 PM Reply	So then.. $$, free "containers for military equipment" and whatever ancillary material would accompany this US-->Q largesse ... doesn't matter; If it doesn't have an M in front It cannot be be a real affront It's just a little present sent To drop stuff on a luckless peasant Love your simple Boolean mind and its Certainty in all aspects of complex situations. It reminds me of what to eschew, when attempting genuine thought on any topic.
Post #347,032 by mmoffitt 8/30/11 3:43:01 PM Reply	I think what Beep is saying... is that "enabling the movement of arms" or "improving the capability to move arms" is not the same as "arming."
Post #347,036 by beepster 8/30/11 4:01:50 PM Reply	I suppose.. ...that opening the back and dropping a pallet of food out the back would qualify the same as a bunker buster...assuming you were the one having it hit you in the head. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,040 by mmoffitt 8/30/11 5:02:56 PM Reply	That'd be dual use. ;0)
Post #347,028 by boxley 8/30/11 3:22:06 PM Reply	So I guess Alaska Airlines is an airforce? poor quality one but they do fly those as cargo planes Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #347,034 by Another Scott 8/30/11 3:50:37 PM Reply	Why would Qadaffi want them? Hydrogen bombs could be used to create harbors in Alaska[]. That's not what they're for, though.... Cheers, Scott. - http://arcticcircle....t/vandegraft.html
Post #347,035 by S1mon_Jester 8/30/11 3:56:01 PM Reply	Actually those were L-100 But for some reason, we didn't offer those to Gadaffi.
Post #347,053 by S1mon_Jester 8/30/11 6:36:24 PM Reply	I think you're thinking of the AC-130 A as in Assault.
Post #347,055 by Another Scott 8/30/11 7:16:26 PM Reply	Spooky. Remember John Wayne's movie "The Green Berets"? It doesn't take much to turn a prop plane into a flying lead storm with a huge ammo supply. I thought it was an AC-130, but it was an AC-47 that was "Puff the Magic Dragon" - http://en.wikipedia....wiki/AC-47_Spooky Cheers, Scott.
Post #347,068 by Andrew Grygus 8/30/11 10:47:58 PM 8/30/11 10:50:42 PM Reply	No, the C-130 is fitted with . . . . . a 105mm rapid fire canon. Edited by Andrew Grygus Aug. 30, 2011, 10:50:42 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #347,044 by pwhysall 8/30/11 5:17:21 PM Reply	Re: Call bs A C130 is a military transport, designed for shifting materiel, not freight. A 747-400 or similar is a freighter. A C130 is for moving tanks.
Post #347,047 by beepster 8/30/11 5:43:09 PM Reply	It's used for many things. But it's not a platform for weapons. Yes it can carry them..and one of our versions is armed..but that carries a separate designation, as I already have pointed out. It is not a bomber. It is not a fighter. Unless it lands on you or crashes on you...the c130 is not a weapon. When some says "arming the enemy" is a big, green bus what comes to mind? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,049 by pwhysall 8/30/11 5:52:13 PM Reply	Re: It's used for many things. C'mon, Bill. If the intention was to give Libya some air freight capacity, they'd have been given things like a 747-400. A C130 is a military transport, for transporting military things which have the express purpose of rendering people into little bits. I'd say a C130 full of tanks is exactly as much of a weapon as the tanks themselves. Any transfer of military hardware is "arming" someone. I might give a pass to a transfer of medical and food supplies, but anything else - that's arming someone.
Post #347,051 by beepster 8/30/11 5:59:01 PM Reply	I wouldn't. Selling them the tanks is another matter. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,054 by S1mon_Jester 8/30/11 6:44:22 PM 8/30/11 6:58:47 PM Reply	Nothing I've seen prevents a C-130 from delivering a BLU-82 or MOAB. Traditionally speaking, they're delivered via the MC-130 variants, but I haven't seen anything the PREVENTS them from being delivered by a standard C-130. Like the BLU-82, the MOAB rests in a cradle on an airdrop platform inside a C-130 aircraft. Due to the size of the ordnance, the item is extracted from either an MC-130 Talon II or "Slick" C-130 Hercules by way of a parachute. A drogue parachute extracts the weapon, cradle and platform-and the weapon is quickly released to maintain maximum forward momentum. The grid fins then open and begin guiding the weapon to its target. http://www.globalsec...unitions/moab.htm Edited by S1mon_Jester Aug. 30, 2011, 06:58:47 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #347,066 by beepster 8/30/11 10:26:14 PM Reply	except not having one to deliver. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,087 by S1mon_Jester 8/31/11 10:31:27 AM Reply	True - but you have repeated claimed it wasn't a bomber and I'll say it again - there is this company called Boeing that sells these cargo thingys to a company called FedEx. We could've shipped on of those aircraft.
Post #347,096 by beepster 8/31/11 2:44:39 PM Reply	Re: True - but you have repeated claimed it wasn't a bomber Except it appears they already own the planes being discussed, we just never delivered them. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #347,097 by S1mon_Jester 8/31/11 3:16:46 PM Reply	Yep, we never delivered them Libya bought eight C-130s in 1969 and liked them well enough to buy eight more for $42 million in 1972. Lockheed built the new aircraft at its Marietta assembly line, test-flew them and painted them in Libyan colors. When they were ready for delivery, however, political considerations kept them grounded. Libya is still on the U.S. State Department's list of countries that support terrorism, and military sales to such countries are illegal. The United States has lifted travel and trade bans against Libya in the last two months, but State Department officials say Libya is likely to remain on the terrorism list for some time. The toll that time and neglect have taken on the airframes also is unknown. The planes have stayed outside and exposed to the elements since the Carter administration. Each plane's engines, propellers, avionics and wiring are likely to need overhauls or outright replacement. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1129951/posts Yep, we didn't deliver them. Looks like we had good reasons for not delivering them. Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya and Obama....and none of these guys (or their administration) have delivered on these planes. Now McCain wants to.
Post #347,098 by S1mon_Jester 8/31/11 3:19:51 PM Reply	Actually - we might have delivered them... The U.S. military dramatically stepped up its assault on Libyan government ground forces over the weekend, launching its first missions with AC-130 flying gunships and A-10 attack aircraft designed to strike enemy ground troops and supply convoys. The use of the aircraft, during days of heavy fighting in which the momentum seemed to swing in favor of the rebels, demonstrated how allied military forces have been drawn deeper into the chaotic fight in Libya. A mission that initially seemed to revolve around establishing a no-fly zone has become focused on halting advances by government ground forces in and around key coastal cities. The AC-130s, which fly low and slow over the battlefield and are typically more vulnerable to enemy fire than fast-moving fighter jets, were deployed only after a week of sustained coalition attacks on Libyan government air defenses and radar sites. These aircraft, armed with heavy machine guns and cannons that rake the ground, allow strikes on dug-in Libyan ground forces and convoys in closer proximity to civilians. http://nation.foxnew...bya#ixzz1WdTitYKP Abdul - is that our plane?
Post #347,099 by Another Scott 8/31/11 3:45:18 PM Reply	See the linkies in 50198. :-) http://iwt.mikevital....iwt?postid=50198 He has C-130s, and he has more waiting in Marietta that he'll never get. Cheers, Scott.
Post #347,102 by S1mon_Jester 8/31/11 6:18:16 PM Reply	Sorry...should've included the sign on that one. We sent over an AC-130 over to Libya...it didn't land, but did leave some presents.
Post #347,103 by Another Scott 8/31/11 7:02:27 PM Reply	Whoops! :-)
Post #347,056 by boxley 8/30/11 7:18:48 PM Reply	they are used to move food and freight to rural alaska used all around the world as freighters. Not an av buff but the c130 is stol compared to the others you mentioned Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #347,058 by Another Scott 8/30/11 7:38:52 PM Reply	Why would Qadaffi need a STOL plane? He wanted it for military applications. His air force had lots of planes of various types: http://en.wikipedia....r_force_equipment Looks like he still won't be getting those C-130s he ordered in the 1970s... http://uk.jalopnik.c...otting-in-georgia Cheers, Scott. (Who vaguely remembers that the Shah had some planes that were never delivered, too.)

Welcome to IWETHEY!