[George M. Middius[_4_]]

First, let me assure you that I am not stoned. Or drunk or high in any
way. This is just a question I ran across that I can't answer.

For the purpose of home audio, which is more important: the musician or
the recording engineer?

My first response, of course, was the musician. How can anybody who
contributes after the music is played originally outrank the performer?
But then it was suggested that the agency of recording can elevate or
destroy the quality of the performance as it's heard on your home
system. I had no answer for that.

What is the answer?

[TT]

"George M. Middius" wrote in
message ...
:
:
:
: First, let me assure you that I am not stoned. Or drunk or
high in any
: way. This is just a question I ran across that I can't
answer.
:
: For the purpose of home audio, which is more important:
the musician or
: the recording engineer?
:
: My first response, of course, was the musician. How can
anybody who
: contributes after the music is played originally outrank
the performer?
: But then it was suggested that the agency of recording can
elevate or
: destroy the quality of the performance as it's heard on
your home
: system. I had no answer for that.
:
: What is the answer?
:
How many times have you been totally disappointed with a
live performance of a singer whose recording you actually
liked? Or have you ever listened to an interview with singer
where the TV crew captures some audio as they are recording?
It often sounds dreadful!

IMHO the answer would be the engineer. He makes or breaks
the performance - literally ;-)

Cheers TT

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

First, let me assure you that I am not stoned. Or drunk or high in any
way. This is just a question I ran across that I can't answer.

For the purpose of home audio, which is more important: the musician or
the recording engineer?

My first response, of course, was the musician. How can anybody who
contributes after the music is played originally outrank the performer?
But then it was suggested that the agency of recording can elevate or
destroy the quality of the performance as it's heard on your home
system. I had no answer for that.

What is the answer?

IMO, the answer is obvious: If your question is interpreted as "Whom
can you least do without", then it's clearly the musician. There is no
music to record with the musician. Someone like me, who has minimal
recording experience and training, can set up the mics and set the
levels, and then play. Now, before someone makes up some story about me
discounting the engineer's role, I'm doing no such thing. To make a
GOOD recording takes an engineer's experienced/trained hand. But I'd
much rather listen to a recording performed and engineered by a
professional/good amateur musician (presuming no engineering experience)
than I would a recording performed and engineered by a professional/good
amateur recording engineer (presuming no musical experience)!

That said, great recordings are obviously a collaboration between the
two.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...



First, let me assure you that I am not stoned. Or drunk or high in any
way. This is just a question I ran across that I can't answer.

For the purpose of home audio, which is more important: the musician or
the recording engineer?

My first response, of course, was the musician. How can anybody who
contributes after the music is played originally outrank the performer?
But then it was suggested that the agency of recording can elevate or
destroy the quality of the performance as it's heard on your home
system. I had no answer for that.

What is the answer?

**The musician, obviously. Followed by the instrument/s. Then the recording
engineer. I readily concede that recording engineers are the lowest form of
human life, given their regular capacity to stuff up a good performance.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 12, 12:29*am, George M. Middius
wrote:

What is the answer?

Nice try. You're *still* not going to tell me what to eat.

If you really want to know the answer, have Stereophile do a blind
test, first without the musician, then without the engineer. Let your
ears be the judge.

We really need the F-22. Call your congressman.

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Iun, 01:29, George M. Middius wrote:
First, let me assure you that I am not stoned. Or drunk or high in any
way. This is just a question I ran across that I can't answer.

For the purpose of home audio, which is more important: the musician or
the recording engineer?

My first response, of course, was the musician. How can anybody who
contributes after the music is played originally outrank the performer?
But then it was suggested that the agency of recording can elevate or
destroy the quality of the performance as it's heard on your home
system. I had no answer for that.

What is the answer?

Flip the coin.
Just think of what would result
if JA recorded Arny's church choir. There is your answer

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" wrote in
message

For the purpose of home audio, which is more important:
the musician or the recording engineer?


Speaking as RAO's *only* currently active recordist, I would say that the
musician and the space where the recording was made are more important than
any peculiar genius that the recording engineer might have.

I've recorded amateurs and pros, and I've recorded in good rooms and bad.

It is far easier to get a good recording by using good musicians playing in
a good room. In that context the recording engineer need have only nominal
skills. Elaborate micing and mixing may be unnecessary. Cheap mics sound
better.

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Iun, 06:43, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

. Elaborate micing

"Rediculous"!



Cheap mics sound
better.


Ridiculous generalization
though some cheap ones sound quite good and much better than other
cheap ones.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


On 12 Iun, 06:43, Art's Master and Commander"Arny Krueger"
wrote the following, which was obviously way over his
head:

. Elaborate micing

"Rediculous (sic)"!


Cheap mics sound better.

(in better rooms with better musicians)

Ridiculous generalization

How so, Art?

You don't have much respect for musicians, do you?

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Iun, 07:28, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 12 Iun, 06:43, Art's Master and Commander"Arny Krueger"
wrote the following, which was obviously way over his
head:
. Elaborate micing
"Rediculous (sic)"!
Cheap mics sound better.

(in better rooms with better musicians)

Ridiculous generalization

How so, Art?

You don't have much respect for musicians, do you?

You said "cheap mics sound better"
in the context of recording good musicians
The assumption of a normal person like
me would be that the statement would be
an assertion that they sound better than expensive ones.

I neither said nor implied ANYTING AT ALL
about musicians.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 12 Iun, 07:28, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 12 Iun, 06:43, Art's Master and Commander"Arny
Krueger" wrote the following, which
was obviously way over his head:
. Elaborate micing
"Rediculous (sic)"!
Cheap mics sound better.

(in better rooms with better musicians)

Ridiculous generalization

How so, Art?

You don't have much respect for musicians, do you?

You said "cheap mics sound better"

And it obviously confused you, Art.

You lashed out as if I had I said:

"Cheap mics sound better than expensive mics."

For the record, I neither own nor have I directed anybody to buy cheap
microphones. The last 4 microphones that I bought had a list price of $499.
Most of the microphones I use are mid-priced microphones costing $100's. A
few are very inexpensive microphones for whom the next logical upgrade would
be microphones costing $500 or more.

If you had an ounce of sense and intrapersonal skill Art, you'd ask for a
clarification instead of flying off the handle as you habitually do. You're
so deep into ridicule that you are impossible to have around and carry on a
decent conversation.

in the context of recording good musicians

Meaning, that recording good musicians often makes cheap mics sound better.
Furthermore, some very good vocalists seem to have a talent for getting the
best out of whatever mic you put in their hands.

The assumption of a normal person like
me would be that the statement would be
an assertion that they sound better than expensive ones.

You're not the standard of a normal person Art, as any reasonable person who
has read your vast spew of childish and mean posts can tell.

I neither said nor implied ANYTING(sic) AT ALL about musicians.

As you admit Art, the context was good musicians, and you didn't apply it
properly.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! :

What is the answer?

Nice try. You're *still* not going to tell me what to eat.

If you really want to know the answer, have Stereophile do a blind
test, first without the musician, then without the engineer. Let your
ears be the judge.

We really need the F-22. Call your congressman.

All very well, but you forgot to blame it on illegal immigrants. Scottie
"wins" again.

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Iun, 08:27, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message







On 12 Iun, 07:28, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 12 Iun, 06:43, Art's Master and Commander"Arny
Krueger" wrote the following, which
was obviously way over his head:
. Elaborate micing
"Rediculous (sic)"!
Cheap mics sound better.

(in better rooms with better musicians)

Ridiculous generalization
How so, Art?
You don't have much respect for musicians, do you?
You said "cheap mics sound better"

And it obviously confused you, Art.

You lashed out as if I had I said:

"Cheap mics sound better than expensive mics."




My Krooglish decoding software is waiting for the next service pack
I had to deal with the faqlse assumption thta you can write cogent
English.

For the record, I neither own nor have I directed anybody to buy cheap
microphones. The last 4 microphones that I bought had a list price of $499.


My Krooglish decoder is still on the frits.
Is that $49 total, or each?



Most of the microphones I use are mid-priced microphones costing $100's. A
few are very inexpensive microphones for whom the next logical upgrade would
be microphones costing $500 or more.


I am sure one could find some very nice microphones in that range.
At your level as an amateur recordist (I don't mean that as
any slight, just that it is not your profession, and it doesn't
bring in the big bucks for you) it wouldn't make sense
to buy a lot of $1-2k microphones. But there is no reason
to denigrate pros who do.


If you had an ounce of sense and intrapersonal skill Art, you'd ask for a
clarification instead of flying off the handle as you habitually do. You're
so deep into ridicule that you are impossible to have around and carry on a
decent conversation.


Fly off the handle? I read what youwrote,
how you wrote it. If you wish not
to be misunderstood, you need to write in a more cogent idiom.

in the context of recording good musicians

Meaning, that recording good musicians often makes cheap mics sound better.
Furthermore, some very good vocalists seem to have a talent for getting the
best out of whatever mic you put in their hands.

The assumption of a normal person like
me would be that the statement would be
an assertion that they sound better than expensive ones.

You're not the standard of a normal person Art, as any reasonable person who
has read your vast spew of childish and mean posts can tell.


Normal people find you revolting. I find you revolting.

I neither said nor implied ANYTING(sic) AT ALL about musicians.

As you admit Art, the context was good musicians, and you didn't apply it
properly

I interpreted what you wrote. If you wrote more clearly, there
wouldn't
be any need to apply interpretation.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 11, 11:38*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

First, let me assure you that I am not stoned. Or drunk or high in any
way. This is just a question I ran across that I can't answer.

For the purpose of home audio, which is more important: the musician or
the recording engineer?

My first response, of course, was the musician. How can anybody who
contributes after the music is played originally outrank the performer?
But then it was suggested that the agency of recording can elevate or
destroy the quality of the performance as it's heard on your home
system. I had no answer for that.

What is the answer?

IMO, the answer is obvious: *If your question is interpreted as "Whom
can you least do without", then it's clearly the musician. *There is no
music to record with the musician. *Someone like me, who has minimal
recording experience and training, can set up the mics and set the
levels, and then play.

That's just you doubling as musician and engineer.
Good musician/amateur engineer.

Of course.

*Now, before someone makes up some story about me
discounting the engineer's role, I'm doing no such thing. *To make a
GOOD recording takes an engineer's experienced/trained hand. *But I'd
much rather listen to a recording performed and engineered by a
professional/good amateur musician (presuming no engineering experience)
than I would a recording performed and engineered by a professional/good
amateur recording engineer (presuming no musical experience)!

Where does Alan Parson's fall?

Great at both.



That said, great recordings are obviously a collaboration between the
two.

I have to break it into 3 parts.
Songwriter, musician/singer collaborating with a producer (some of
which have as much influence on the outcome as the musicians), and
engineer.

They are all capable of breaking the result. None can make it on their
own.
Given that I'd have to say they're equally important to creating that
preciously
rare result of excellence.
As far as relative importance when excellence isn't attainable....it's
easy to see that without musicians you've got nothing.
But producers and engineers can make some awful singers sound
good. I've heard of bands whose weak musicians are compensated for
by creative producers.
So I still ean toward generally equally important. I say generally
because the
situation varies greatly depending upon the type of music recorded.
For example...straight acoustic with no effects uses the engineer
to strictly capture. In lots of music with effects the producer and
engineer
have influence on the sound originated as well as how it is captured.
Where does the musician role stop and the engineer begin?

ScottW

[UnsteadyKen]

Soundhaspriority said:

In one point of view, a novel is
simply a movie with very bad picture and sound.

I like that image Bob.

Now complete this sentence.
A movie is simply a novel with...?
--
Ken

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

If you had an ounce of sense and intrapersonal skill Art,

Speaking of decoding Krooglish, what does your app tell you
"intrapersonal skill" means? To me it means Arnii is having
conversations with the voices in his head.

instead of flying off the handle as you habitually do.

Fly off the handle? I read what youwrote,
how you wrote it. If you wish not
to be misunderstood, you need to write in a more cogent idiom.

That's true. It's also true of Scottie's burblings. Scooter's gibbering
isn't as sub-comprehensible as often as Turdy's, but it's definitely a
point you should address.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Soundhaspriority said:

Speaking as RAO's *only* currently active recordist,

Sorry, Arny, but John Atkinson and I are both active recordists.

You forgot to read Arnii's mind. He said "active recordist" but he was
thinking "... who is also a renowned fecesologist". If you include the
clumping modifier, Turdborg does indeed stand alone.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"George M. Middius" wrote in
message

For the purpose of home audio, which is more important:
the musician or the recording engineer?


Speaking as RAO's *only* currently active recordist,

Sorry, Arny, but John Atkinson and I are both active
recordists.

Only if you call what you do "active recording".

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" wrote in
message


That's true. It's also true of Scottie's burblings.
Scooter's gibbering isn't as sub-comprehensible as often
as Turdy's, but it's definitely a point you should
address.

Interesting - two candidates for Alzies if not already so afflicted, and
when they can't read and comprehend they blame the writer.

Do they let you guys buy groceries? Or, can you shop by looking at the
pictures on the boxes?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 12, 11:26*am, ScottW wrote:
On Jun 11, 11:38*pm, Jenn wrote:





In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

First, let me assure you that I am not stoned. Or drunk or high in any
way. This is just a question I ran across that I can't answer.

For the purpose of home audio, which is more important: the musician or
the recording engineer?

My first response, of course, was the musician. How can anybody who
contributes after the music is played originally outrank the performer?
But then it was suggested that the agency of recording can elevate or
destroy the quality of the performance as it's heard on your home
system. I had no answer for that.

What is the answer?

IMO, the answer is obvious: *If your question is interpreted as "Whom
can you least do without", then it's clearly the musician. *There is no
music to record with the musician. *Someone like me, who has minimal
recording experience and training, can set up the mics and set the
levels, and then play.

*That's just you doubling as musician and engineer.
*Good musician/amateur engineer.

*Now, before someone makes up some story about me
discounting the engineer's role, I'm doing no such thing. *To make a
GOOD recording takes an engineer's experienced/trained hand. *But I'd
much rather listen to a recording performed and engineered by a
professional/good amateur musician (presuming no engineering experience)
than I would a recording performed and engineered by a professional/good
amateur recording engineer (presuming no musical experience)!

*Where does Alan Parson's fall?



That said, great recordings are obviously a collaboration between the
two.

I have to break it into 3 parts.
Songwriter, musician/singer collaborating with a producer (some of
which have as much influence on the outcome as the musicians), and
engineer.

They are all capable of breaking the result. None can make it on their
own.

Tell that to Bruce Springsteen.

"Mr. Springsteen recorded the songs for ''Nebraska'' in his bedroom,
using a four-track tape machine. He assumed that those versions were
merely demos, that he would soon flesh the songs out in a proper
studio with his band. When he tried to do that, he ended up feeling
that he was losing the essence of his original vision. He then
recorded versions of the songs solo in a studio, and the results were
similarly sterile. So 10 of the performances on Mr. Springsteen's
bedroom tape, which he had carried around in his pocket for months,
became ''Nebraska,'' and the album's quality of being ''not really
finished'' became part of its mythology, a crucial reason why it holds
such a revered place in the lore of popular music."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C1A9669C8B 63

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Iun, 15:54, "Arny Krueger" wrote:



Do they let you guys buy groceries? Or, can you shop by looking at the
pictures on the boxes?


this puts a nice shine on your posts

http://tinyurl.com/2kw3ql

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Jun 12, 11:26*am, ScottW wrote:
On Jun 11, 11:38*pm, Jenn wrote:





In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

First, let me assure you that I am not stoned. Or drunk or high in any
way. This is just a question I ran across that I can't answer.

For the purpose of home audio, which is more important: the musician or
the recording engineer?

My first response, of course, was the musician. How can anybody who
contributes after the music is played originally outrank the performer?
But then it was suggested that the agency of recording can elevate or
destroy the quality of the performance as it's heard on your home
system. I had no answer for that.

What is the answer?

IMO, the answer is obvious: *If your question is interpreted as "Whom
can you least do without", then it's clearly the musician. *There is no
music to record with the musician. *Someone like me, who has minimal
recording experience and training, can set up the mics and set the
levels, and then play.

*That's just you doubling as musician and engineer.
*Good musician/amateur engineer.

*Now, before someone makes up some story about me
discounting the engineer's role, I'm doing no such thing. *To make a
GOOD recording takes an engineer's experienced/trained hand. *But I'd
much rather listen to a recording performed and engineered by a
professional/good amateur musician (presuming no engineering experience)
than I would a recording performed and engineered by a professional/good
amateur recording engineer (presuming no musical experience)!

*Where does Alan Parson's fall?



That said, great recordings are obviously a collaboration between the
two.

I have to break it into 3 parts.
Songwriter, musician/singer collaborating with a producer (some of
which have as much influence on the outcome as the musicians), and
engineer.

They are all capable of breaking the result. None can make it on their
own.

Tell that to Bruce Springsteen.

"Mr. Springsteen recorded the songs for ''Nebraska'' in his bedroom,
using a four-track tape machine. He assumed that those versions were
merely demos, that he would soon flesh the songs out in a proper
studio with his band. When he tried to do that, he ended up feeling
that he was losing the essence of his original vision. He then
recorded versions of the songs solo in a studio, and the results were
similarly sterile. So 10 of the performances on Mr. Springsteen's
bedroom tape, which he had carried around in his pocket for months,
became ''Nebraska,'' and the album's quality of being ''not really
finished'' became part of its mythology, a crucial reason why it holds
such a revered place in the lore of popular music."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...05751C1A9669C8
B63

In the solo guitar world that I hang around in, there are several great
players who make fantastic sounding recordings in their home studios,
all by themselves: Laurence Juber, Ed Gerhard, Doug Smith, Teja Gerken,
et al. I invite folks to look up their recordings for what I consider
to be SOTA for the instrument.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 12, 6:07*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jun 12, 2:13*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 12, 11:26*am, ScottW wrote:

On Jun 11, 11:38*pm, Jenn wrote:

In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

First, let me assure you that I am not stoned. Or drunk or high in any
way. This is just a question I ran across that I can't answer.

For the purpose of home audio, which is more important: the musician or
the recording engineer?

My first response, of course, was the musician. How can anybody who
contributes after the music is played originally outrank the performer?
But then it was suggested that the agency of recording can elevate or
destroy the quality of the performance as it's heard on your home
system. I had no answer for that.

What is the answer?

IMO, the answer is obvious: *If your question is interpreted as "Whom
can you least do without", then it's clearly the musician. *There is no
music to record with the musician. *Someone like me, who has minimal
recording experience and training, can set up the mics and set the
levels, and then play.

*That's just you doubling as musician and engineer.
*Good musician/amateur engineer.

*Now, before someone makes up some story about me
discounting the engineer's role, I'm doing no such thing. *To make a
GOOD recording takes an engineer's experienced/trained hand. *But I'd
much rather listen to a recording performed and engineered by a
professional/good amateur musician (presuming no engineering experience)
than I would a recording performed and engineered by a professional/good
amateur recording engineer (presuming no musical experience)!

*Where does Alan Parson's fall?

That said, great recordings are obviously a collaboration between the
two.

I have to break it into 3 parts.
Songwriter, musician/singer collaborating with a producer (some of
which have as much influence on the outcome as the musicians), and
engineer.

They are all capable of breaking the result. None can make it on their
own.

Tell that to Bruce Springsteen.

"Mr. Springsteen recorded the songs for ''Nebraska'' in his bedroom,
using a four-track tape machine. He assumed that those versions were
merely demos, that he would soon flesh the songs out in a proper
studio with his band. When he tried to do that, he ended up feeling
that he was losing the essence of his original vision. He then
recorded versions of the songs solo in a studio, and the results were
similarly sterile. So 10 of the performances on Mr. Springsteen's
bedroom tape, which he had carried around in his pocket for months,
became ''Nebraska,'' and the album's quality of being ''not really
finished'' became part of its mythology, a crucial reason why it holds
such a revered place in the lore of popular music."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...1338F932A05751....

*No accounting for taste. *I have no doubt Springsteen sounds better
recorded on a piece of crap machine in his bedroom.
If he did it in the shower it might have gone down as the greatest
album of all time for some.

Did I say I liked it? I made no critical comment at all.

I merely pointed out that your comment "None can make it on their own"
was in error, as is most of what you say on virtaully *any* topic.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

I merely pointed out that your comment "None can make it on their own"
was in error, as is most of what you say on virtaully *any* topic.

So what? Scottie assures us he looooves to admit he was wrong and, uh,
"ask for clarification". So does Arnii Krooger, as it happens.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 12, 7:11*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

I merely pointed out that your comment "None can make it on their own"
was in error, as is most of what you say on virtaully *any* topic.

So what? Scottie assures us he looooves to admit he was wrong and, uh,
"ask for clarification". So does Arnii Krooger, as it happens.

We'll see what happens with 2pid's imbecilic idea of having F-22s drop
30,000 pound bombs on Iran. LoL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 13, 1:11*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jun 12, 8:34*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 12, 7:11*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Shhhh! said:

I merely pointed out that your comment "None can make it on their own"
was in error, as is most of what you say on virtaully *any* topic.

So what? Scottie assures us he looooves to admit he was wrong and, uh,
"ask for clarification". So does Arnii Krooger, as it happens.

We'll see what happens with 2pid's imbecilic idea of having F-22s drop
30,000 pound bombs on Iran. LoL!

*Another obvious lie from the shhtard. *I see now why you claim Arny
has voices in his head.
You don't want to be the only one.

On Jun 12, 1:51=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 12, 12:01=A0pm, ScottW wrote:

BTW, if we did have to take out Iran nuke facilities, what aircraft
will we use to prevent losses to their AA systems?

The cruise missile.

A MOP carrying cruise missile. That would be quite a sight.
When will we have those in our arsenal?
Ooops....someone said they have no value in the current
battlefield.

ScottW

Message-ID: e68c36a7-3d3a-40ec-9aad-


Of course, in your total and utter ignorance you might not have known
that the HARM missile is on the F-16, not the F-22:

"The Air Force introduced HARM onboard the F-4G Wild Weasel and later
on specialized F-16 aircraft equipped with the HARM Targeting System
(HTS)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM

What? No HARM on the F-22? Maybe that's not its role, 2pid. Ooooops.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...22-weapons.htm

Duh.

Give it up, 2pid. You're an idiot.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 13, 5:42*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jun 13, 2:10*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 13, 1:11*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Jun 12, 8:34*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

What? No HARM on the F-22? Maybe that's not its role, 2pid. Ooooops.

Maybe the current HARM is so big and fat it won't fit in the weapons
bay and gives a stealth aircraft a big fat radar signature?

Just like the external hard points do, 2pid. That's why its weapons
bay is internal.

And the current HARM is a standoff weapon dependent upon the
enemy turning on their radar, so all the Iranians need do is the
same thing the Iraqis did,
keep their radar off until the big bombers come in.

That's a weakness of anti-radar weaponry, to be sure. If they do not
turn it on, how do you propose to detect it?

Thankfully our planners would not rely exclusively on your dumb plan
as it is so easily defeated.

I have no "dumb plan", 2pid. All I point out is that the F-22 is not a
SEAD weapon, as you proposed.

Some other weapon will also be required against fixed missile sites.

But not the F-22.

Mobile ones are a bigger problem requiring hunt and destroy.

After they turn it on, yes?

Is the F-16 suited for that?

It's what we have, like it or not.

*They get litup, they will get shot down.

Against Iran? GMAFB.

So is a new HARM in the F-22s future?

Still searching for a mission for the F-22 I see. Maybe it is SEAD.
Lol

*http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...p?channel=awst....

Apparently it is....so much for your limited role.

Gosh, 2pid. So sue me. Military planners tend to consider weapons on
hand, not some "maybe, might happen someday well down the road if it's
approved and budgeted for and the designs are approved and function as
designed and the tests work out as they should and there is a
perceived need" scenario such as you propose here.

"The U.S. military is increasingly interested in developing a new
generation of high-speed air-to-surface missiles that could be
integrated into stealth aircraft to attack an enemy’s radar sites or
fleeting targets."

So how many decades in your 'scenario' of attacking Iran's nuclear
capability do we have? Do you have any clue at all as to how long this
would take from the "interest at the Pentagon" level to an
"operational" weapons system?

God, 2pid, declare 'victory' if you must, but please quit being so
****ing stupid.

People ignorant in tactical or strategic options pin their hopes on
wishful thinking.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 14, 9:33*am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in messagenews:d2126a32-ded7-424d-921c-

Thankfully our planners would not rely exclusively on your dumb plan
as it is so easily defeated.

I have no "dumb plan", 2pid. All I point out is that the F-22 is not a
SEAD weapon, as you proposed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then why are they working to develop a HARM missile that will
fit in the internal bay?

They have, according to your citation thaey have "increasingly
expressed interest" in developing one. That's far different than
"working to develop".

Some other weapon will also be required against fixed missile sites.

But not the F-22.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Certainly a better choice than the F-16 which can only standoff hoping
to get a radar fix. Sending 'em in close invites significant losses.

You try to sound so tough and so knowledgable. LoL!

2pid, did you read that the S-300 AA system can PICK UP STEALTH
AIRCRAFT?

Duh.

But they're cheap...so WTH.

No, 2pid, lives are valuable. You're drawing yet another stoopid
conclusion.

Sssshhhhtard doesn't seem to think pilots lives are worth the money.

2pid is way off base, as usual.

Mobile ones are a bigger problem requiring hunt and destroy.

After they turn it on, yes?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hopefully before they turn it on. *Speaking of that...

AA systems will be spread all over and networked. What does that mean?
It means that even assuming a radar-based system, which many of the
newer ones aren't, one site will radiate and even if you kill that
site the shots will come from a different site, or even a should-fired
weapon.

Imbecile.

do you know how many preemptive HARMS were fired
in Iraq and how successful that strategy was?

"While launching HARMs preemptively may be an effective and necessary
tactic, it not an efficient tactic. More importantly, reliance on this
tactic may be an
indication of intelligence and targeting cycle shortfalls that may
need to be addressed."

So the report concludes it was effective but wasteful.

Happy reading.www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21141.pdf

Things you overlooked in your citation:

There appear to be very few countries capable of seriously challenging
U.S. air forces in air-to-air combat.

[Ever heard THAT one before, dum-dum?]

No U.S. aircraft has been lost to an enemy aircraft since 1991.

[Which proves that the next-generation air-superiority fighter was not
needed]

DOD finds some air defenses difficult to suppress or destroy. Many
analysts say that emerging air defense technologies and tactics will
prove
more threatening and more difficult to counter than current systems.

[So a new HARM will likely not be any more effective.]

Shoulder-fired missiles continue to pose a problem for today’s
SEAD forces.

[These can and will be all over the battlefield.]

The Russian SA-20, still under development, has
been likened to the U.S. Patriot PAC-2 missile, but with an even
longer range and a *radar
capable of detecting stealthy aircraft*.

[Emphasis mine.]

"Preemptive shots" is an issue for all weapons systems, 2pid. That's
why later models of the M-16 were limited to three-round bursts.

But I'm sure that you knew that. ;-)

BTW, based on your citation there is absolutely no reason to believe
that a HARM in an F-22 will be any more effective than one on an F-16.
They still have to radiate to pick it up, and as your citation states
IR is becoming more common.

Duh.

Is the F-16 suited for that?

It's what we have, like it or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank-you Donald Rumsfeld. *I didn't know you were an admirer
of his. * We go to war with the weapons we
have, and when some sshhhtard only worried about the current
battlefields with little regard for possible future conflicts,
we're left with this.

2pid, YOUR OWN CITATION counters your position. That assumes you even
understood what it said, which isn't likely.

Duh.

They get litup, they will get shot down.

Against Iran? GMAFB.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rus...air-defences/2...

Looks like a tricky proposition for an F-16 to get in range
even with JSOWs.

It looks like the F-22 will as well.

According to Russian missile makers, the new S300 has anti-stealth
capability and can shoot down combat aircraft, cruise missiles, as
well as ballistic missiles in an anti-ballistic missile mode.

http://www.cdi.org/russia/272-14.cfm

So you'd rather risk a $350 million dollar aircraft performing a
mission it was not designed for? And one that even with a new, smaller
HARM will likely be no better than the current technology? Lol

You're one 'smart' cookie!

Say, how about an unmanned vehicle, 2pid? Have you ever considered
that?

Nope. You're too busy trying to justify the unjustifiable.

So is a new HARM in the F-22s future?

Still searching for a mission for the F-22 I see. Maybe it is SEAD.
Lol

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...p?channel=awst....

Apparently it is....so much for your limited role.

Gosh, 2pid. So sue me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tell it to the killed or captured F-16 pilots.

Jingoism noted. You have not come close to proving that a new HARM on
a $350 million dollar aircraft will be any more effective than the
current HARM on a EA-6B or an F-16, or that any pilot's lives will be
saved.

You also overlook one other small detail: when you decide to commit
the military you will have some losses. That does not mean that I do
not value their lives, or that the command structure doesn't value
their lives, but simply means that I understand that this is part of
the deal. If you can't accept that, then do not plan on committing the
military.

This is not about a video game, 2pid. With a video game, imbeciles can
say about whatever they want and their opinion is as 'valid' as the
next. In a shooting war, training and experience counts. LoL!