Started by Quick Karl, June 10, 2014, 04:34:29 PM
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.
Quote from: albrecht on September 23, 2014, 11:03:21 AMYes, 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.
Quote from: Uncle Duke on September 23, 2014, 02:13:59 PMF-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.
Quote from: SciFiAuthor on September 24, 2014, 01:09:28 AMIn 2009, Obama called the F-22 outdated and unnecessary. He's had something against that plane from the start.
Quote from: SciFiAuthor on September 24, 2014, 01:02:37 AMI can understand the spiteful and filthy French part, but calling John Kerry an uncircumsized old geezer?
Quote from: bateman on September 23, 2014, 05:05:27 PMCoalition forces have been reportedly bombarding Tikrit, Iraq today.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 24, 2014, 01:14:25 AMMaybe 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, 01:46:51 AMIt'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.
Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on September 24, 2014, 01:19:06 AMI 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.
QuoteI 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: 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.
Quote from: SciFiAuthor on September 24, 2014, 01:57:14 AMI 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.
Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on September 24, 2014, 02:06:34 AMYeah I was fond of that plane. I'm not sure a VTOL Mach fighter will be an effective substitute.
Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on September 24, 2014, 01:56:08 AMNot 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, 02:06:34 AMYeah 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: Yorkshire pud on September 24, 2014, 02:06:49 AMJust 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: SciFiAuthor on September 24, 2014, 02:11:35 AMIt'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, 02:23:37 AMIt 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.
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.
Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on September 24, 2014, 02:26:42 AMI 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, 02:41:41 AMOh the Typhoon is pretty handy. They have damn good drivers in them too.
Quote from: SciFiAuthor on September 24, 2014, 02:36:26 AMI 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.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 24, 2014, 02:53:43 AMThe 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: b_dubb on September 24, 2014, 05:33:58 AMRe: drones ... is no one concerned that our fleet of remote controlled flying guns could be hacked and turned against our own troops?