ISIS

[FightTheFuture]

Hmmmm...I wonder if....

http://www.dailytech.com/Iran+Yes+We+Hacked+the+USs+Drone+and+Heres+How+We+Did+It/article23533.htm

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Re: drones ... is no one concerned that our fleet of remote controlled flying guns could be hacked and turned against our own troops?

Not really, but I'm not too crazy about current drones pretty much being used as the ultimate weapon of terror.  They go into areas where America is not at war, go into civilian neighborhoods, and the operator often mistakes civilians for militants.  And there's not much they can do about it.  If they were to shoot one down, so what?  They're cheap, not particularly technologically advanced, and unmanned.  Easy to replace.  It's a faceless enemy.

[FightTheFuture]

Not really, but I'm not too crazy about current drones pretty much being used as the ultimate weapon of terror.  They go into areas where America is not at war, go into civilian neighborhoods, and the operator often mistakes civilians for militants.  And there's not much they can do about it.  If they were to shoot one down, so what?  They're cheap, not particularly technologically advanced, and unmanned.  Easy to replace.  It's a faceless enemy.

Would you be more comfortable with manned aircraft flying around dropping munitions on civilians?

That way the aircraft might have a chance of going down, jeopardizing the lives of our pilots. That`s a good thing?

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Would you be more comfortable with manned aircraft flying around dropping munitions on civilians?

That way the aircraft might have a chance of going down, jeopardizing the lives of our pilots. That`s a good thing?

If we sent manned planes into Pakistan, that would be an act of war, but somehow using unmanned drones is okay.  I think if a nation is going to be high and mighty about terrorist attacks on its own soil, it better find another way of waging war other than conducting its own terrorist attacks.  Perhaps operatives on the ground with Pakistani consent.  Drone pilots apparently don't have very good situational awareness.

[bateman]

Woman secretly films life under ISIS control:


http://youtu.be/iecM8MxPTQw

[SciFiAuthor]

If we sent manned planes into Pakistan, that would be an act of war, but somehow using unmanned drones is okay.  I think if a nation is going to be high and mighty about terrorist attacks on its own soil, it better find another way of waging war other than conducting its own terrorist attacks.  Perhaps operatives on the ground with Pakistani consent.  Drone pilots apparently don't have very good situational awareness.

In other words, boots on the ground.

[FightTheFuture]

If we sent manned planes into Pakistan, that would be an act of war, but somehow using unmanned drones is okay.  I think if a nation is going to be high and mighty about terrorist attacks on its own soil, it better find another way of waging war other than conducting its own terrorist attacks.  Perhaps operatives on the ground with Pakistani consent.  Drone pilots apparently don't have very good situational awareness.

We have operated manned aircraft in Pakistan -- specifically the Waziristan region, the preferred hideout for today's terrorists -- in the past, and probably will  in the future. However, the simple fact is, UAVs are far more effective and efficient at killing terrorists..

[Uncle Duke]

Oh I agree with you on the Buccaneer. That was a fantastic aircraft that could have delivered nukes on the battlefield--a very relevant concern in its time--unlike anything else anyone had. It was a truly beautiful innovative plane for going in under the radar.  The A-10 is a different animal, but underscores that need for low and slow capability. While designed as a tank buster, it turned out to be a star with close air support to this day for missions involving strafing terrorist positions. If it was simply a matter of destroying tanks, I'd say retire it. We have plenty of ways to take out tanks now, especially this old Russian shit we're faced with. Russia just doesn't have it in the tank arena compared to the west's M-1's and Challengers etc. But the strafing is where I'm worried, I just don't see how we're going to strafe a position with these increasingly delicate planes we're developing; the US must be depending on drone technology for this, but that's a gamble in the short term. If we hadn't needed to use the A-10 all the time in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'd say, alright, reevaluate it in 2015, but not retire it. But we used the things constantly and very recently and really have nothing to replace them that wouldn't cost a huge amount to lose in low flight unless we have low attack drones in advanced development that are showing themselves equally capable (which could be, of course).

Too young to remember the "Lead Sled", the F-105?  The only thing the Bucc had over the F-105 was range, but that's only because the Fleet Air Arm didn't have capable in-service aerial refueling capability in the early 60s.  In addition, with its internal 20mm cannon, the F-105 had an air-to-air capability the Bucc never had.  I had the honor of working with a couple F-105 "MiG Killers" from Vietnam early in my career.  They loved the a/c.

[MV/Liberace!]

If we sent manned planes into Pakistan, that would be an act of war, but somehow using unmanned drones is okay.  I think if a nation is going to be high and mighty about terrorist attacks on its own soil, it better find another way of waging war other than conducting its own terrorist attacks.  Perhaps operatives on the ground with Pakistani consent.  Drone pilots apparently don't have very good situational awareness.

agreed.  entirely.

[Uncle Duke]

If we sent manned planes into Pakistan, that would be an act of war, but somehow using unmanned drones is okay.  I think if a nation is going to be high and mighty about terrorist attacks on its own soil, it better find another way of waging war other than conducting its own terrorist attacks.  Perhaps operatives on the ground with Pakistani consent.  Drone pilots apparently don't have very good situational awareness.

You are talking about a political vice military approach to the problem. The politicos don't want to have to deal with captured US pilots or body bags, so they use UCAVs and cruise missiles.  Easier to blame some 2nd LT at Creech for taking out a Paki wedding than to face the American people after a pilot is beheaded and/or a KIA is removed from a  C-17 at McGuire.

[SciFiAuthor]

Too young to remember the "Lead Sled", the F-105?  The only thing the Bucc had over the F-105 was range, but that's only because the Fleet Air Arm didn't have capable in-service aerial refueling capability in the early 60s.  In addition, with its internal 20mm cannon, the F-105 had an air-to-air capability the Bucc never had.  I had the honor of working with a couple F-105 "MiG Killers" from Vietnam early in my career.  They loved the a/c.

Not so young, I was around while the two-seated F-105's were still in service. It had two issues that set it apart from the Buccaneer's capabilities, range and it wasn't designed for carrier operations. This created a hole in US tactical nuclear weapons air capability in the late 50's and early 60's where a tactical nuke could not always be used against a soviet carrier group. The British were unique in their ability of having a plane designed specifically to toss drop a nuke after coming in at low altitude against a marine target and do it from anywhere they pleased. Of course we made up for this with our nuclear-tipped torpedoes along with further development of air refueling.

[Yorkshire pud]

Not so young, I was around while the two-seated F-105's were still in service. It had two issues that set it apart from the Buccaneer's capabilities, range and it wasn't designed for carrier operations. This created a hole in US tactical nuclear weapons air capability in the late 50's and early 60's where a tactical nuke could not always be used against a soviet carrier group. The British were unique in their ability of having a plane designed specifically to toss drop a nuke after coming in at low altitude against a marine target and do it from anywhere they pleased. Of course we made up for this with our nuclear-tipped torpedoes along with further development of air refueling.

There's a site dedicated to the Buccaneer, anecdotes from ex crew etc. There's a good story from an ex Phantom (F4) pilot who tried to catch a Bucc over southern England in the 70's in a 'dogfight'. He pinged him at about 5000 feet and the Bucc immediately hit the deck, but because of the rules he couldn't go below 200 feet over open country (even higher over towns and cities). The Phantom driver spent the next few minutes trying to get a lock on but couldn't even catch the Bucc up let alone fire on it. He was burning fuel like it was going out of fashion and simply couldn't out maneuver the Bucc and eventually broke off the attack. 

Then there's the one of a Bucc ground crew member who was enjoying his morning coffee on the balcony of his German third floor apartment. He saw the shape in the distance and a Bucc flew below his level between his block and the one across the street. The pilot apparently was out to prove his theory that he could get low enough to ride the bow wave hands off.

[Uncle Duke]

Not so young, I was around while the two-seated F-105's were still in service. It had two issues that set it apart from the Buccaneer's capabilities, range and it wasn't designed for carrier operations. This created a hole in US tactical nuclear weapons air capability in the late 50's and early 60's where a tactical nuke could not always be used against a soviet carrier group. The British were unique in their ability of having a plane designed specifically to toss drop a nuke after coming in at low altitude against a marine target and do it from anywhere they pleased. Of course we made up for this with our nuclear-tipped torpedoes along with further development of air refueling.

Soviet carrier group in the late 50s and early 60s?  No such thing existed.  The Soviets had a few "carriers" by the late 70s, but their only fixed wing a/c were a handful of the pathetic Yak-38.

The USN's A-5 Vigilante was designed for basically the same mission as the Bucc, although the recon variant
of the Vigilante got more pub than bomber version.   Absolutely a beautiful a/c.

[someguy]

I heard americans are really concerned that IS people are going to come across the border from mexico? the fucking cartels would murder any IS dudes on sight just because it was bad for business.  they have enough trouble getting mexicans across the border, sending a terrorist across the border would shut the cartel's shit right down and then they wouldn't be making any money

[SciFiAuthor]

Soviet carrier group in the late 50s and early 60s?  No such thing existed.  The Soviets had a few "carriers" by the late 70s, but their only fixed wing a/c were a handful of the pathetic Yak-38.

The USN's A-5 Vigilante was designed for basically the same mission as the Bucc, although the recon variant
of the Vigilante got more pub than bomber version.   Absolutely a beautiful a/c.

Anticipatory design. Call it a battle group, whatever you want to call a group of ships that threaten the United States enough to spend a shitload of money to design an aircraft capable of dropping a tactical nuke to destroy it. Getting a bit past the time frame here, the A-5 barely acted as a nuclear bomber before it was obsolete -- as I said, military technology was moving at breakneck speed at the time so it became a reconnaissance aircraft after filling it's intended role for only a short time. It was simply too late for its role by the time it made it into widespread service so we adapted it to something else to justify having built it. The same thing's going to happen to the F-22 and F-35.

[SciFiAuthor]

I heard americans are really concerned that IS people are going to come across the border from mexico? the fucking cartels would murder any IS dudes on sight just because it was bad for business.  they have enough trouble getting mexicans across the border, sending a terrorist across the border would shut the cartel's shit right down and then they wouldn't be making any money

Unless ISIS pays more.

[b_dubb]

Woman secretly films life under ISIS control:


http://youtu.be/iecM8MxPTQw

This is all kinds of fucked up. 

[Uncle Duke]

Anticipatory design. Call it a battle group, whatever you want to call a group of ships that threaten the United States enough to spend a shitload of money to design an aircraft capable of dropping a tactical nuke to destroy it. Getting a bit past the time frame here, the A-5 barely acted as a nuclear bomber before it was obsolete -- as I said, military technology was moving at breakneck speed at the time so it became a reconnaissance aircraft after filling it's intended role for only a short time. It was simply too late for its role by the time it made it into widespread service so we adapted it to something else to justify having built it. The same thing's going to happen to the F-22 and F-35.

Not true.  The A-5's service life as nuclear bomber was short-lived because of a change in policy, the decision was made the USN's nuke role would be handled primarily by boomers and not aircraft.  The Vigilante was far from obsolete technically, in fact it was one of the most technologically advanced, second generation jet aircraft in the world.  Now one could make the argument the A-5's mission became obsolete with the shift in defense policy, but the same could be said for the Buccaneer after the Brits folded their tents "East of Suez" and began the draw down of their military that saw them eventually do away with with their full-size carriers.  The difference is the Bucc got a second lease on life with the RAF after the UK government decided the TSR2 and then the F-111 were too expensive, and forced the RAF to accept the hand-me-down a/c to fulfill its strike requirement.  As you can imagine, the RAF was not happy with that turn of events.  In hindsight, however, it was a good decision since the Buccs had a number of hours left in them and they did yeoman's service with the RAF.  Thankfully, neither the Vigilante nor the Buccaneer was every used in combat in their nuclear role.

[Yorkshire pud]

Not true.  The A-5's service life as nuclear bomber was short-lived because of a change in policy, the decision was made the USN's nuke role would be handled primarily by boomers and not aircraft.  The Vigilante was far from obsolete technically, in fact it was one of the most technologically advanced, second generation jet aircraft in the world.  Now one could make the argument the A-5's mission became obsolete with the shift in defense policy, but the same could be said for the Buccaneer after the Brits folded their tents "East of Suez" and began the draw down of their military that saw them eventually do away with with their full-size carriers.  The difference is the Bucc got a second lease on life with the RAF after the UK government decided the TSR2 and then the F-111 were too expensive, and forced the RAF to accept the hand-me-down a/c to fulfill its strike requirement.  As you can imagine, the RAF was not happy with that turn of events.  In hindsight, however, it was a good decision since the Buccs had a number of hours left in them and they did yeoman's service with the RAF.  Thankfully, neither the Vigilante nor the Buccaneer was every used in combat in their nuclear role.

Interesting you bring up the TSR2; another 'what if' designs. And I too was one of those who thought it was a dreadful mistake to kill it before it had the chance. However, like a lot of things it wasn't that simple. The airframe was beyond anything anyone had at that time. It could outrun any Soviet fighter, and most AA missiles; it's projected mission profiles could be interchanged via computers...However the constant (as always) mind changing by the RAF top brass exactly what was wanted from it; the electronic computer wizadry that wasn't yet invented, the avionics it would have installed, were then primitive compared to what is now available, all contributed to it's downfall. And the budget it attracted. It simply couldn't be sustained.

[someguy]

Unless ISIS pays more.

no way man. they could make a big payday then get caught, or keep doing what they're doing for a steady payday

[FightTheFuture]

And now we have this ...


http://nypost.com/2014/09/25/iraq-uncovers-isis-plot-to-attack-subways-in-us-and-paris/



ISIS plotting ‘imminent’ attacks on subways in US, Paris: Iraq’s PM

Islamic State terrorists are plotting an attack on US and Paris subway systems, Iraq’s prime minister warned Thursday morning at the United Nations.
Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said he was told of the plot by his intelligence in Baghdad, and that it was from foreign ISIS fighters in Iraq, according to the Associated Press.
“I’m receiving accurate reports from Baghdad that there were arrests of a few elements and there were networks from inside Iraq to have attacks … on metros of Paris and US,” he said.
He said the attacks had not been thwarted yet, and he had alerted the United States.
Al-Abadi made the claim at a meeting with reporters at a gathering of world leaders at the General Assembly.
The prime minister said that their intelligence division has captured several ISIS fighters, who revealed during interviews that French and Americans had been recruited by ISIS and are plotting hits on metro systems in Paris and the United States.

[Uncle Duke]

Interesting you bring up the TSR2; another 'what if' designs. And I too was one of those who thought it was a dreadful mistake to kill it before it had the chance. However, like a lot of things it wasn't that simple. The airframe was beyond anything anyone had at that time. It could outrun any Soviet fighter, and most AA missiles; it's projected mission profiles could be interchanged via computers...However the constant (as always) mind changing by the RAF top brass exactly what was wanted from it; the electronic computer wizadry that wasn't yet invented, the avionics it would have installed, were then primitive compared to what is now available, all contributed to it's downfall. And the budget it attracted. It simply couldn't be sustained.

Yes,  both the TSR2 and Avro (Canada) Arrow are in that "what might have been" niche in aviation history.  I suppose you could add the MB5 to that mix as well. There is a TSR2 at the RAF Museum at Cosford, I remember being surprised at the sheer size of the a/c. 

There is a speculative history writer in Australia who wrote a book about Oz becoming a world power after WWII, and using RAAF TSR2s in combat against India.  I'm generally not a fan of alternative history fiction, but I really enjoyed this one.

[SciFiAuthor]

no way man. they could make a big payday then get caught, or keep doing what they're doing for a steady payday

Possibly, but it doesn't look like they get caught regardless of what they're doing. They seem to be really good at money laundering and it might well be worth it to make a few hundred million to get a couple of terrorists across the border. I doubt it's needed though, I'm more worried about the home grown ISIS sympathizers that are already here.

[SciFiAuthor]

This is all kinds of fucked up.

I don't know if I'd want to be openly speaking perfect French in ISIS territory. That said, any place where young men prefer that beautiful women be forcibly covered in burkas is completely, abnormally fucked.

[paladin1991]

There is a speculative history writer in Australia who wrote a book about Oz becoming a world power after WWII, and using RAAF TSR2s in combat against India.  I'm generally not a fan of alternative history fiction, but I really enjoyed this one.

Really?  When I was in hi skool we used to game this same concept.  What is the name of the author?

[paladin1991]

I don't know if I'd want to be openly speaking perfect French in ISIS territory. That said, any place where young men prefer that beautiful women be forcibly covered in burkas is completely, abnormally fucked.

*uses hands as scale*  6th century vs 21st.  hmmm.   Burkas vs bikinis.  yep, 21st century for me.  The scales don't lie.

[VtaGeezer]

UK Parliament has OK'd Brit strikes in Iraq.  Yesterday the Dutch and Netherlands said they'd join in.  The Coalition now has as many Western countries as Arab...perhaps too many jumping on the bandwagon will be counterproductive in the Sunni Arab perceptions of persecution.

[paladin1991]

UK Parliament has OK'd Brit strikes in Iraq.  Yesterday the Dutch and Netherlands said they'd join in.  The Coalition now has as many Western countries as Arab...perhaps too many jumping on the bandwagon will be counterproductive in the Sunni Arab perceptions of persecution.

Yeah.  I'm real worried how the muslims of the world will see this.

[VtaGeezer]

Yeah.  I'm real worried how the muslims of the world will see this.

You should be.  The whole point is to get Arab Muslims to see to and accept religious extremism as a greater threat than constant Western interference and domination in their affairs. Until then, it will be perpetual low grade war for America.  We've already been at it for 20+ years with no resolution in sight.

[Uncle Duke]

Really?  When I was in hi skool we used to game this same concept.  What is the name of the author?

John Baxter

http://www.grubby-fingers-aircraft-illustration.com/alternative_RAAF.html