BellGab.com Archive

Coalition forces have been reportedly bombarding Tikrit, Iraq today.

 I don't know if you guys have spoke about this but it irritates the hell out of me when we so kindly amounts in the news media weeks ahead of time when and where we're going to strike. Do some of you armchair generals (and I mean this in the nicest way) no why we do this campaign after campaign, war after war? I know back in World War II you could get shot for doing it. There must be some clever reason behind this that eludes me. I mean, the fucking idiots announce it on the nightly news for chrissakes.
  Surely they must realize that the smarter and higher ranking terrorist simply spread out and immerse themselves in locals safe surroundings before the bombing starts. I know it was reported that a building got hit last night and over 100 and some "terrorist" died but we don't really know if those were terrorists. They might have been innocent dupes, planted there by the terrorists.

Quote from: Tarbaby on September 23, 2014, 06:42:41 PM
I don't know if you guys have spoke about this but it irritates the hell out of me when we so kindly amounts in the news media weeks ahead of time when and where we're going to strike. Do some of you armchair generals (and I mean this in the nicest way) no why we do this campaign after campaign, war after war? I know back in World War II you could get shot for doing it. There must be some clever reason behind this that eludes me. I mean, the fucking idiots announce it on the nightly news for chrissakes.
  Surely they must realize that the smarter and higher ranking terrorist simply spread out and immerse themselves in locals safe surroundings before the bombing starts. I know it was reported that a building got hit last night and over 100 and some "terrorist" died but we don't really know if those were terrorists. They might have been innocent dupes, planted there by the terrorists.

I wonder about this too.  There is a value to being able to keep some state secrets.  I can only guess the Western powers don't give their enemies much respect for being able to do anything about the attacks, though I am sure they very carefully weigh what they release and what they don't. 

edit:  It's probably done for both propaganda and psychological warfare purposes.  The US is pretty good at creating its own terror.  Just think how you would feel in a peaceful neighbourhood in Pakistan if you heard a drone fly overhead after hearing about wedding parties being wiped out.

Quote from: albrecht on September 23, 2014, 11:03:21 AM
Yes, I know. What is so odd is that this British guy didn't even know the differences between major treaties or even a basic time-line of events. They like the UN so much over there they think the UN invented and drew up every treaty, protocol, or agreement. Strange.

ps: one used to be able to find, quite commonly, good surplus Enfields over here but I haven't seen them around in a decade or more. Shame. Fun gun but heavy! Now all one still sees in the cheap surplus market are various and sundry Mausers (still decent weapons depending on mfg.) But I recall bunches of Enfields for, as I recall, $60 covered in cosmoline, sight unseen. My friend got one and I think we spend more money degreasing- and then buying .303 ammo- than it cost for the gun. But it was fun to shoot, but can't imagine carrying that around in the field for weeks! Heavy.

Yes, I remember the abundant and cheap Enfield days. I think the supply simply ran out and when you do see them now they cost hundreds and are usually sporterized. I think the weirdest gun hoard I ever saw was about ten years ago when someone found a stockpile of British East India Company brown bess muskets. Hundreds of them were found in a back room in the King of Nepal's armory where they'd been sitting forgotten for two centuries. Maybe someone has some Enfields stockpiled somewhere and they'll get cheap again.

My god the lows the world has sunk to. Some choice contents from ISIS Spokesman Abu Mohammad al-Adnani's rambling speech yesterday:

“If you can kill a disbelieving American or European â€" especially the spiteful and filthy French â€" or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then (do so),”

“To the extent that Kerry, that uncircumsized old geezer, suddenly became an Islamic jurist, issuing a verdict to the people that the Islamic State was distorting Islam, that what it was doing was against Islamic teachings, and that the Islamic State was an enemy of Islam,” al-Adnani sneered, ”and to the extent that Obama, the mule of the Jews, suddenly became a sheikh, mufti, and an Islamic preacher, warning the people and preaching in defense of Islam, claiming that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam.”

I can understand the spiteful and filthy French part, but calling John Kerry an uncircumsized old geezer?

Seriously though, this illustrates the effectiveness of ISIS propaganda. Our politicians are confined in this politically correct model where they have to call Islam the religion of peace and say that the Caliphate isn't really Islamic and all the rest. Ok, but that can be exploited and al-Adnani just did it effectively by pointing out that Kerry and Obama have no credibility with which to judge an Islamic movement. Very disturbing tactics, this group is the most dangerous movement the world's seen since the Nazis.

Quote from: Uncle Duke on September 23, 2014, 02:13:59 PM
F-22s probably flew strike CAP to protect the attack a/c from Syrian or Iranian fighters, although the WSJ claims the F-22s did drop ordnance.  Doesn't make much sense to risk the world's most advanced air-to-air aircraft to hit ground targets when there were plenty of legacy strike a/c available.

In 2009, Obama called the F-22 outdated and unnecessary.  He's had something against that plane from the start.

ISIS needs to be contained and dismantled before they get over here and try to do something similar to that dismal 9/11 stunt and Al Qaeda pulled off.  Because they might just be successful.  I am very pleased about the air strikes, and hope they keep ISIS on the run, on the defense, and unable to do very much at all coz they're too busy running for U.S. Coalition bombs.  (I look forward to the UK joining that coalition).

I agree with the person who commented along the lines that this is the most dangerous group to come along since the Nazis.  Let us just hope they do not precipitate WW III.  By nipping them in the bud now, maybe that can be avoided.

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on September 24, 2014, 01:09:28 AM
In 2009, Obama called the F-22 outdated and unnecessary.  He's had something against that plane from the start.

Maybe because it's stupidly expensive and can't do anything that couldn't be done to begin with, or not as well.

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on September 24, 2014, 01:02:37 AM
I can understand the spiteful and filthy French part, but calling John Kerry an uncircumsized old geezer?

I guess that's his way of saying Kerry has had a long life that had nothing to do with Islamic traditions, as you already pointed out.  I'm just saying it explicitly.

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on September 24, 2014, 01:09:28 AM
In 2009, Obama called the F-22 outdated and unnecessary.  He's had something against that plane from the start.

I read that too and it's disappointing.  I'm generally an Obama supporter, but I think that reveals a poor understanding of military hardware.  The F-35 will replace most fighters, but it doesn't have the first strike and air superiority capabilities of the F-22 which seems pretty necessary against other sophisticated militaries.

Quote from: bateman on September 23, 2014, 05:05:27 PM
Coalition forces have been reportedly bombarding Tikrit, Iraq today.

So does that make this Persian Gulf War III?

Ack

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 24, 2014, 01:14:25 AM
Maybe because it's stupidly expensive and can't do anything that couldn't be done to begin with, or not as well.

It's certainly stupidly expensive, Lockheed Martin really fucked that up with the cost overruns, but I'm not sure on the not as well part. If you're going to go up against another aircraft, such as an SU-35, you want to be miles from it and hope your stealth capability renders you hard to see on his radar and then fire a missile and head home without getting near him. The F-22 can do that, F-15 and F-16 less so in that they fail on the radar part and are more likely to get caught in a close fight with the SU-35, which is no slouch of an aircraft on the maneuverability count. A few years ago we might have said "so what, the cold war is over, and the F-22 is a relic legacy from those days and won't ever go up against an SU-35," but now . . . with Putin . . . well, it's not such a bad thing to have around, at least until the F-35 is deployed and obviously Obama's found some use for it.

I've heard the F-35 can't fly if there's lightning. From what I've read the F-35 is a big, expensive yawn of an aircraft. Building one plane to satisfy all the needs of all the military branches means the plane will do nothing well or at least that's what the RAND corp found in their analysis

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on September 24, 2014, 01:46:51 AM
It's certainly stupidly expensive, Lockheed Martin really fucked that up with the cost overruns, but I'm not sure on the not as well part. If you're going to go up against another aircraft, such as an SU-35, you want to be miles from it and hope your stealth capability renders you hard to see on his radar and then fire a missile and head home without getting near him. The F-22 can do that, F-15 and F-16 less so in that they fail on the radar part and are more likely to get caught in a close fight with the SU-35, which is no slouch of an aircraft on the maneuverability count. A few years ago we might have said "so what, the cold war is over, and the F-22 is a relic legacy from those days and won't ever go up against an SU-35," but now . . . with Putin . . . well, it's not such a bad thing to have around, at least until the F-35 is deployed and obviously Obama's found some use for it.

Not only that, but I read an interesting analysis of the F-35 vs F-22 out of Australia regarding Russian anti-aircraft networks.  Apparently, while the F-35's stealth is good, it's not too difficult to defeat with a well set-up SAM network.  The F-22 doesn't suffer from those vulnerabilities.  It can fly in quickly and stealthily, break up the ground network and air cover, and prepare the area for the workhorse F-35 or legacy fighters.  Interoperability of 5th generation fighters is also an extremely important feature which I think was used by US M1 tanks in Dessert Storm to very good effect.  It makes the enemy have to fight something akin to the Borg instead of individual aircraft.

Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on September 24, 2014, 01:19:06 AM
I guess that's his way of saying Kerry has had a long life that had nothing to do with Islamic traditions, as you already pointed out.  I'm just saying it explicitly.

I usually don't agree with Kerry on much of anything, but in the case of ISIS, I hope the administration's strategy of destroying them works out. Just destroy ISIS and get them out of the world's hair before they become something much worse.

Quote
I read that too and it's disappointing.  I'm generally an Obama supporter, but I think that reveals a poor understanding of military hardware.  The F-35 will replace most fighters, but it doesn't have the first strike and air superiority capabilities of the F-22 which seems pretty necessary against other sophisticated militaries.

Not to mention that it's going to be a while before widespread deployment of the F-35. We needed at least an interim advanced plane, if not one to augment the F-35's capabilities. I think an even bigger mistake is the retirement of the A-10 though. Bad move.

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on September 24, 2014, 01:57:14 AM
...I think an even bigger mistake is the retirement of the A-10 though. Bad move.

Yeah I was fond of that plane.  I saw some pretty impressive videos when I was going through some tests at the aircrew selection center in Toronto.  I'm not sure a VTOL Mach fighter will be an effective substitute.

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on September 24, 2014, 01:57:14 AM
I usually don't agree with Kerry on much of anything, but in the case of ISIS, I hope the administration's strategy of destroying them works out. Just destroy ISIS and get them out of the world's hair before they become something much worse.

Not to mention that it's going to be a while before widespread deployment of the F-35. We needed at least an interim advanced plane, if not one to augment the F-35's capabilities. I think an even bigger mistake is the retirement of the A-10 though. Bad move.

Just like that? LOL...Pour billions of dollars into R&D for an aircraft that will make do until the real deal comes along. That would go well with those who rightly would ask how the hell that was justified.

Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on September 24, 2014, 02:06:34 AM
Yeah I was fond of that plane.  I'm not sure a VTOL Mach fighter will be an effective substitute.

Harrier. That's a bloody good aeroplane. Too bad our backward Prime Minister decided it wasn't worth keeping our fleet. Asshole.

Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on September 24, 2014, 01:56:08 AM
Not only that, but I read an interesting analysis of the F-35 vs F-22 out of Australia regarding Russian anti-aircraft networks.  Apparently, while the F-35's stealth is good, it's not too difficult to defeat with a well set-up SAM network.  The F-22 doesn't suffer from those vulnerabilities.  It can fly in quickly and stealthily, break up the ground network and air cover, and prepare the area for the workhorse F-35 or legacy fighters.  Interoperability of 5th generation fighters is also an extremely important feature which I think was used by US M1 tanks in Dessert Storm to very good effect.  It makes the enemy have to fight something akin to the Borg instead of individual aircraft.

Right, interoperability is the key to the future. Actually, it's the key to today really. But there is a wildcard here; drone capability. I have no clue what the Pentagon's thinking is on that, but it's possible that they're doing a double-take on military aircraft in that AI may be sufficiently good by 2035 that manned aircraft would be rendered obsolete, in which case you don't need so many F-22's and F-35's because all manned aircraft on the battlefield could be obsolete by the time the F-35 is fully deployed. Such a fleet of automated or remotely controlled aircraft would take the Borg to a new level, since human loss would no longer be a factor and would have major value in demoralization of the enemy. Fighting men is one thing, fighting manufactured robots or drones is entirely a different affair.

Quote from: Uncle Duke on September 23, 2014, 02:13:59 PM
F-22s probably flew strike CAP to protect the attack a/c from Syrian or Iranian fighters, although the WSJ claims the F-22s did drop ordnance.  Doesn't make much sense to risk the world's most advanced air-to-air aircraft to hit ground targets when there were plenty of legacy strike a/c available.

I was slightly surprised to see the F-22 involved in the operation at all. My guess is they wanted to get it's status back to mission capable after some of the issues they recently experienced.

I also found it a little curious that all the missions flew late at night. Why not fly bombing sorties during the middle of the day when the maximum amount of personnel casualties can be obtained? Not like ISIS has any AA capabilities. All I saw were some buildings being blown up, which in all likelihood, were empty.

In an unconventional conflict like this, it is imperative to inflict copious amounts of death and misery on the people doing the fighting. That creates a secondary effect of many fighters throwing down their guns and running for the hills.

Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on September 24, 2014, 02:06:34 AM
Yeah I was fond of that plane.  I saw some pretty impressive videos when I was going through some tests at the aircrew selection center in Toronto.  I'm not sure a VTOL Mach fighter will be an effective substitute.

It's just proven to be a massively effective plane that's exceeded its design intent and can take a beating like no other aircraft we have. We use it all the time for close air support, which is a huge use, so why retire it? I don't get it. 

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 24, 2014, 02:06:49 AM

Just like that? LOL...Pour billions of dollars into R&D for an aircraft that will make do until the real deal comes along. That would go well with those who rightly would ask how the hell that was justified.

Pfft, you think we're bad now. You should have seen us in the 1950's. We had a new bomber every week until we finally came up with the B-52 because the cold war was driving military technological development at a very rapid rate. I don't think we have much choice, technology in general is moving faster and faster exponentially, so you have to pick and choose what you build based on need and hope you get it right. The F-35 will suffer the same fate as the F-22; quick obsolescence and then it will take over as the unjustified white elephant as we develop something more (probably drones) to replace it.

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on September 24, 2014, 02:11:35 AM
It's just proven to be a massively effective plane that's exceeded its design intent and can take a beating like no other aircraft we have. We use it all the time for close air support, which is a huge use, so why retire it? I don't get it.

It could be because the airframes themselves are getting close to the end of their operational life. Low level high G flying pounds airframes to buggery*, much more than if it was only take off, cruise, land. Refitting an airframe is very expensive, and would need to be certified and signed off as having an expected operational life. All that costs, probably more than the worth of the refit.


*The RAF took the ex RN Buccaneer low level strike bombers in the 70's after the decommissioning of Ark Royal. They performed brilliantly at Redflag 77 at Nellis where they never got shot down by F15's or AA units. This was an unarmed strike bomber flown at below 50 feet usually often down to ten or twenty. In (I think) 79, they were grounded after one crashed due to a wing spar fracture, and the spar problem was found to be in quite a lot of the fleet. Of course these were designed before the advent of computer modelling and the alloys available now. But the nature of how they were flown and it's punishment has made engineers and the operators stipulate limits on airframe longevity below that of other aircraft types.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 24, 2014, 02:06:49 AM

Just like that? LOL...Pour billions of dollars into R&D for an aircraft that will make do until the real deal comes along. That would go well with those who rightly would ask how the hell that was justified.

I don't know, I think you need both.  They serve two different roles.  As far as I understand the F-22 doesn't have an equal in air-to-air combat, with the possible exception of the stealth fighters Russia and China are developing.  The USN has yet to decide on a naval equivalent of the F-22, or if they're just going to hold off until drones are advanced enough to replace fighters and pilots.  Right now they're using F-18E Super Hornets which they'll still need even once they adopt the F-35.  The F-35 has more sophisticated electronics, but it doesn't supplant the Raptor.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 24, 2014, 02:23:37 AM

It could be because the airframes themselves are getting close to the end of their operational life. Low level high G flying pounds airframes to buggery*, much more than if it was only take off, cruise, land. Refitting an airframe is very expensive, and would need to be certified and signed off as having an expected operational life. All that costs, probably more than the worth of the refit.

I don't think so because we have a huge amount of A-10's in ordinary and foamed up as a result of the end of the cold war. Those airframes have very little use. I don't know what their condition is now, but it's likely good. I think the real problem was parts, but parts can be remanufactured. It's probably worth it since we seem to have found ourselves providing close air support over and over in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote
*The RAF took the ex RN Buccaneer low level strike bombers in the 70's after the decommissioning of Ark Royal. They performed brilliantly at Redflag 77 at Nellis where they never got shot down by F15's or AA units. This was an unarmed strike bomber flown at below 50 feet usually often down to ten or twenty. In (I think) 79, they were grounded after one crashed due to a wing spar fracture, and the spar problem was found to be in quite a lot of the fleet. Of course these were designed before the advent of computer modelling and the alloys available now. But the nature of how they were flown and it's punishment has made engineers and the operators stipulate limits on airframe longevity below that of other aircraft types.

That's actually a good case in point, the Buccaneer could have delivered a tactical nuke like nothing anyone else had. I mean, how do you shoot something down that's 30 feet in the air? That's my point with the A-10, no one really has anything that can get low like that anymore and it's proven very useful in recent wars. We just have nothing to replace it. Maybe drones, but I'm skeptical.

Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on September 24, 2014, 02:26:42 AM
I don't know, I think you need both.  They serve two different roles.  As far as I understand the F-22 doesn't have an equal in air-to-air combat, with the possible exception of the stealth fighters Russia and China are developing.  The USN has yet to decide on a naval equivalent of the F-22, or if they're just going to hold off until drones are advanced enough to replace fighters and pilots.  Right now they're using F-18E Super Hornets which they'll still need even once they adopt the F-35.  The F-35 has more sophisticated electronics, but it doesn't supplant the Raptor.

Oh the Typhoon is pretty handy. They have damn good drivers in them too. 

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 24, 2014, 02:41:41 AM
Oh the Typhoon is pretty handy. They have damn good drivers in them too. 

Yes, sorry, I get too much American media over here.

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on September 24, 2014, 02:36:26 AM
I don't think so because we have a huge amount of A-10's in ordinary and foamed up as a result of the end of the cold war. Those airframes have very little use. I don't know what their condition is now, but it's likely good. I think the real problem was parts, but parts can be remanufactured. It's probably worth it since we seem to have found ourselves providing close air support over and over in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's actually a good case in point, the Buccaneer could have delivered a tactical nuke like nothing anyone else had. I mean, how do you shoot something down that's 30 feet in the air? That's my point with the A-10, no one really has anything that can get low like that anymore and it's proven very useful in recent wars. We just have nothing to replace it. Maybe drones, but I'm skeptical.

The Bucc and the A10 are two different animals though. Neither could really do what the other does. The Bucc was called 'easy rider' by it's drivers because it could be flown hands off at near Mach one at low level. This ability was because of a new fangled design in airframes in the 50's using area rule, where the surface area of the fuselage and wing roots (in cross section) is almost constant down the full length, hence it's wide hips and deep engine nacelles. The short fin was so it would fit in the hangers of the carrier. It also introduced blown flaps to generate lift at low airspeed. The plumbing in them is quite something! Can you tell I'm a fan? The A10 on the other hand was designed to kill tanks with a gun that said 'fuck off'. Redundancy built into it so it could fly when heavily damaged, straight wings so that the ordnance could be in millions of combinations. A titanium bathtub for the driver so he survived in the low level attack  profiles. It was also relatively slow, but that didn't matter because it was strong and not a fighter.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 24, 2014, 02:53:43 AM
The Bucc and the A10 are two different animals though. Neither could really do what the other does. The Bucc was called 'easy rider' by it's drivers because it could be flown hands off at near Mach one at low level. This ability was because of a new fangled design in airframes in the 50's using area rule, where the surface area of the fuselage and wing roots (in cross section) is almost constant down the full length, hence it's wide hips and deep engine nacelles. The short fin was so it would fit in the hangers of the carrier. It also introduced blown flaps to generate lift at low airspeed. The plumbing in them is quite something! Can you tell I'm a fan? The A10 on the other hand was designed to kill tanks with a gun that said 'fuck off'. Redundancy built into it so it could fly when heavily damaged, straight wings so that the ordnance could be in millions of combinations. A titanium bathtub for the driver so he survived in the low level attack  profiles. It was also relatively slow, but that didn't matter because it was strong and not a fighter.

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).

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

Quote from: b_dubb on September 24, 2014, 05:33:58 AM
Re: drones ... is no one concerned that our fleet of remote controlled flying guns could be hacked and turned against our own troops?

I suspect they're operated on an uber secure spread spectrum RF or satellite downlink which might be favourite considering the range. Both can theoretically be interfered with and cause them to crash, but I don't think they could be hacked to divert them. It's whether or not the opposition has the capability to do the former.